Conference hydra::dejavu

The reference that I've got for the 100th Monkey Story listed 
M. Kawai as the author. It was supposedly published in 1963 in an 
obscure scientific article and was supposed to have been the work
of a group of respected Japanese scientists. Lyall Watson published
an account of it in his book "Lifetide" in 1979, which first brought the 
attention of the American public to it. From there the story 
spread. Perhaps someone else has more definitive data as to 
exactly what publication first carried the article. 

For those who are wondering what the article actually is, I've 
typed a summary of it below. Others may wish to skip over it.

 
This summary is taken from pages 11 - 17 of Ken Keyes' paperback 
of the same name - "The Hundredth Monkey".

    "The Japanese monkey, Macaca fuscata, has been observed
in the wild for a period of over 30 years. In 1952, on the island 
of Koshima scientists were providing monkeys with sweet potatoes 
dropped in the sand. The monkeys liked the taste of the raw sweet 
potatoes, but they found the dirt unpleasant.

    An 18-month old female name Imo found she could solve the 
problem by washing the potatoes in a nearby stream. She taught 
this trick to her mother. Her playmates also learned this new way 
and they taught their mothers, too.

    This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by various 
monkeys before the eyes of the scientists. Between 1952 and 
1958, all the young monkeys learned to wash the sandy sweet 
potatoes - the exact number is not known. Let us suppose that 
when the sun rose one morning there were 99 monkeys on Koshima 
Island who had learned to wash their sweet potatoes. Let's 
further suppose that later that morning the hundredth monkey 
learned to wash potatoes. Then it happened!

    By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing 
sweet potatoes before eating them. The added energy of this 
hundredth monkey somehow created an ideological breakthrough!

    But notice. The most surprising thing observed by these 
scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then 
spontaneously jumped over the sea - colonies of monkeys on other 
islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began 
washing their sweet potatoes!

    Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, 
this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. 
Although the exact number may vary, the Hundredth Monkey 
Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know 
of a new way, it may remain the conscious property of those 
people. But there is a point at which if only one more person 
tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this 
awareness reaches everyone!"

RE: .1

Thanks for entering all that info, Bill!  Reading it was most interesting.

The "obscure" nature of the article and the use of undefined terms such
as "added energy" and "[energy] field" smack of the same kind of interpretation
that Eric VonDaniken is famous for.  In short, a pseudoscentific hypothesis
based on a few facts.

As I read the account you kindly included, it all started to sound vaguely
familiar.  It dawned on me that I had heard a very similar story in one
of my anthropology books (a subject in which I have a keen interest).  I
spent about 15 minutes searching, and sure enough, I found the reference!

The following is what I believe is the REAL "hundredth monkey" story, quoted
verbatim from _The Sex Contract_, a book about early man based on current
primate studies: 

    "No doubt the younger individuals [protohominids] experimented most.
    An intriguing clue to this was recently discovered among a community of
    monkeys that Japanese scientists isolated on an island.  One monkey,
    Imo, was only one and a half years old when she noticed the sweet
    potatoes that the anthropologists had strewn along the beach.  Other
    monkeys had been stepping over these strange, sandy objects for months,
    but Imo finally picked one up, dunked it in the ocean to clean off the
    sand, and ate it.  After Imo had made several meals of them, Imo's
    mother tried the sweet potatoes, then mother's friends, and within
    months the entire band was dunking and dining on the new vegetable.
    The last to adopt the habit were the adult males. As group leaders,
    they would have been foolish to try new, possibly dangerous, foods. 

    Years later the Japanese researchers scattered grains of wheat along
    the daily path of these monkeys.  Imo, who had just turned four, was
    once again the innovator.  She carted handfuls of sand and wheat to the
    ocean, where she dropped them.  Not surprisingly, the sand sank, the
    wheat floated, and Imo ate the grain.  Once again her mother imitated
    her, then the other females, infants, and adolescents, and at last the
    dominant males.  In following Imo's lead, these monkeys gradually got
    used to the water--an unusual behavior pattern for free-ranging
    primates.  EVENTUALLY, TWO OF THEM SWAM AWAY TO POPULATE A NEARBY
    ISLAND."  [From _The Sex Contract_, Helen E. Fisher, William Morrow and
    Company, New York, 1982, pp. 72-73 emphasis mine] 

So you see, there was absolutely nothing mystical about the incident.  In fact,
this book has many similar examples of primate learning.  I highly recommend
it. 

John M.

    Re .0:
    
    John, I thing a problem here is that "New Age" is a catch-all phrase
    like "occult" or "hi-fi."  There is no single monolithic "New Age"
    thought; rather, it seems to be a shift in perspective on viewing
    phenomena.  Certain items I have skepticism about; others I have
    indications, including personal experiences, that lead me to
    investigate them further.
    
    Condemning "New Age" thought is rather like condemning all policemen
    because of some rotten cops, or racial/ethnic/cultural stereotypes.
    Note the entry some back about demonic possession (I forget the
    note # and started this before doing a dir/title=); it started out
    looking interestingly, however, it appeared more fishy as more details
    (and the Ed Warren connection) became evident.  And the whole
    discussion happened here, in DEJAVU.
    
    As I've said before, when investigating the paranormal, keep an
    open mind; but not so open your brains fall out.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    Science (while my first great love) has brought humanity a lot of grief
    and despair.  Analytical thinking has determined ways to manipulate
    us, control us, lock us into an economic system that borders on
    slavery, rationalize to intelligent people how we can spend billions
    of resources on weaponry and war and so little on people, on children,
    on improving the quality of our respective lives.  
    Scientists are great at pulling out papers to give credibility to their own
    beliefs, actions, and attitudes.  Thats ok.
    
    If New Age represents anything it is the bringing into balance of
    science and faith, emotion and thought, what some cultures call
    the yin and the yang.  The steamroller aggressiveness of those
    scientists, politicians, military and religious leaders who always
    "know whats best for us", who are trying to "save us from ourselves"
    have brought the quality of human life to a new low.... no, I'm
    not talking about materialism,.. "we'll keep most of the toys but
    we will give you enough to shut you up".
    
    Perhaps its time for us to do what feels right to us as individuals.
    It would be accomplishing a lot if the New Age could free us all
    from the tyranny of those who seem to have an over-whelming desire
    to control the rest of us... through their old books or new papers
    or political establishment or military might or religious hog-wash.
    Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean
    it has to continue.  Isn't the discarding of unwelcome or unnecessary
    conditions or traits what evolution is all about?  
    So, what do you think about it?  or... how do you feel about it?
    :-)

    RE .3  I agree with you Steve.  I only use the term 'New Age'
    to classify a softer, jazz-type music.
    
    
    re. 0   Some of the beliefs and thoughts have been around since
    ancient times, certainly nothing new! 
     I do see  some groups of people attracted to the occult, as another
    fad.  You're right, in a decade or less they'll be interested in
    the next thing that comes along.
    
    Sometimes it's hard to believe in something without some kind of
    concrete evidence.  Maybe the actual desire to learn, or believe
    has something to do with it.  I think everyone should respect others
    beliefs and religions.  (yes, we can weed out the bullsh*t ;^})
    
    Theresa.
    
    attracted to the occult, as another fad.  You're right, in a decade
    or less they'll be interested in the next thing that comes along.

    nothing strange here, just forgot to delete a few lines!

RE: .3 (Steve)

OK, I'll accept all that.

I agree that New Age is a catch phrase.  I use it for want of a better term,
however.  Whenever you see me use the term New Age, please assume that it
refers to all the things I discuss in that particular reply.


RE: .4

Believe it or not, I agree with you to a large extent.  A few nits though:


    >  Scientists are great at pulling out papers to give credibility to
    their own beliefs, actions, and attitudes. < 

Maybe so, but at least they attempt to validate their findings in ways we
can test.  That's a heck of a lot more than channelers, aura readers,
and quacks are willing to do.  Next time someone starts talking about
mystical vibrations and energy fields, ask him how all that was determined.
  


    >   If New Age represents anything it is the bringing into balance of
    science and faith, emotion and thought... < 

Perhaps, but I see very little science, some faith, a whole lot of emotion
and painfully little thought in the movement.


    >  It would be accomplishing a lot if the New Age could free us all
    from the tyranny of those who seem to have an over-whelming desire to
    control the rest of us... through their old books or new papers or
    political establishment or military might or religious hog-wash. < 


To me this sounds like the *essence* of New Age!  How many books has Shirley
Mclane (sp?) written?  And what's this about "an overwhelming desire to
control?"  Seems to me that the point of the Harmonic Convergence was to reach
a "critical mass" of minds and effect the thoughts of people all over the
world.  And as for religious hog-wash, tell that to all the people shelling out
big bucks to hear "Ramtha" (and people think Jim and Tammy-Fae are charlatans!) 


RE: .5 (Theresa)
    
    >  Some of the beliefs and thoughts have been around since ancient
    times, certainly nothing new!  < 


Agreed!  But things that have long been regarded as false are now being
accepted as true--no questions asked.  For instance, "healing Crystals" are a
product of the Dark Ages: literally!  But they didn't work then and they don't
work now.  Even phrenology is making a comeback!  I tell you, when reason
rests, fads flourish. 

John M.
                                    

    	I, for one, agree with John M., that there is a degree of
    utter b*ll in the "you create your own reality" theories.
    I think I may accept more aspects of it than he does though;

        The problem I see with it is this;   When two (or more)
    people (or other living creatures) are creating in the same 
    arena of space/time, there is nothing I have ever seen to
    guarantee that they must want the same thing!   In many cases
    I have observed, one person can out-create the other.   If
    a group of people gang up on one, the group may get to be creating
    their own reality, but what about that one person?

        Events from causes a person unthinkingly initiates, can come back 
    in the future, so *some* events are from personal karma.   But I do 
    not think this can account for the case where others (other than
    the person who get's hit with the event) supply the creative
    power that causes the event;

        Over the years I have come to believe that material reality
    is created by spirit.   The concensus reality is created by
    all of us together.   But merely following the logic of this
    to it's conclusion has shown me that each of us creates very
    little.   Most of our thoughts are copies of memories, our
    ideas are mostly what we've read or learned from others.
    It is real *work* to generate any really creative ideas
    or works.  I see precious few people putting out any creative
    effort.   This leads me to believe that precious few people
    are doing anything to create their realities.   I suspect
    the average person experiences the creative control of others
    more often than experiencing their own power of creative control.
    Our environment is the creative work of incredible numbers
    of plants, animals, people - over many years.   This creation
    now has an ongoing momentum (perhaps this is where 'laws of
    nature' came from).   Since, by the logic of the theory, we
    *all* create the reality, it follows that some of the reality
    each of us experiences is created by others.
	The conclusion is that some might choose their time/place 
    of death, while others do not.    Some events we create, and
    some hit us from outside.   John is right to assert that blaming
    *all* events on the person experiencing them, is cruel.

    	Alan.

    PS, the classic example for this is the Biblical book of Job.
        Job's fate was not created by God or by Job himself or by 
        the Karma of Job's acts.   His fate was created by the 
        action of the devil, according to the story.

    	I'd like to add to .8 that I treat the "we create our 
    realities" belief as an unproven *theory*.   I admit to an 
    emotional belief in the theory, but I subject it to rational 
    inquiry.   I also agree with you, John, that a lot of the new age
    stuff is b*llcr*p.   However, I may give more credence to the
    possible lost sciences that may be concealed in myths and
    prescientific practices than you seem to.   
    
    	Just think, John;  *Some* healers may actually have learned
    some genuine healing tricks with their crystals.   Most of
    the people buying crystals these days are just hauling around
    some extra weight in rocks and ideas, but does that mean *all*
    of them are?
    
	Alan.

RE: .9 

We share similar viewpoints, Alan, but I'll go on record as saying that
crystals have no healing or metaphysical power whatsoever.  If someone thinks
they do, please be so kind as to explain the mechanism by which such crystals
work. 

I will concede that crystals may be a placebo for those who believe in them,
but then a bowling ball could serve the same function.

Here's my outlook:  Crystals are beautiful and have real and wonderful physical
properties like the piezoelectric effect.  Fairies and elves don't exist but are
lovely inhabitants of the world of make-believe.  Aromatherapy scents smell
nice but have no healing powers.  Kirlian photography shows normal electrical
discharge through moist or metallic objects, not psychic "auras." Why can't
these things be recognized and enjoyed for the properties they really have?
Why do people feel the need to ascribe powers to them that they do not possess?
Is it simply a way to make tangible or familiar objects seem less mundane? 


John M.

    To John and Alan,
    
    There is a topic in DSSDEV::Philosophy concerning creating ones
    reality. I'm not sure which one it is but it is titled "YCYOR". In this
    topic we discuss some of the mechanics of that subject. 

    John,
    
    What you are running into here is an old problem for the race of
    wo/man.
    
    Everyone has a personal mythology, but when that personal mythology
    becomes ultimate truth massive problems arise.  
    
    Now personal mythology is okay but I suspect that the forcing of
    a personal mythology into concensus reality is not only very difficult
    but very troublesome.
    
    The prophecies of the New Agers along with those of the Hopis are
    doomed to failure. Why? Because it places responsibility upon some
    distant God-Something_or_Other to ultimately clean up mans act (through
    a disciplinary act) should man decide not to clean up his own.  Man
    will have to clean up his own act, not out of fear but out of wisdom
    and concern for the enviroment. 
                                        
    So while a personal mythology (a.k.a. belief system) is very important
    the believer should also realize the belief system has strong and weak
    points. Most importantly a believer should also realize _how_ the
    belief system (through the facility of language) effects them. 
    
    Another thing I suspect but have no proof for is that sumbunal New Age
    concepts are slightly facist. What??? Yes, slightly, perhaps facist to
    a low degree. What else would you call a philosophy that stipulates
    that all non-adherents will die off? (Where is Topher when I need him??
    B^)  Anyway, I've only seen that recently, since teaching for the
    Harmonic Convergence has come out. If anyone wants to prove me wrong
    I welcome their efforts. (Yes, I know, nits and picks are on the
    way, even as I sleep.)

    Re .13:
    
    Ray, I do apply Sturgeon's Law to what goes under the umbrella of
    New Age stuff.  However, beware that _because_ something's labeled
    "New Age" that you avoid it because of the label.
    
    As several people have pointed out earlier, some stuff that's been
    kicking around for centuries or milennia have been co-opted by the
    New Age movement and claimed as a part of whatever's their perspective.
    Frankly, in the words of Rhett Butler, I don't give a damn.  If
    someone wishes to say that cartomancy is an element of the New Age,
    well, talk is cheap, even though the practice has been around _at
    least_ since Medieval times.  Chiromancy's been around as long,
    and some call _it_ a New Age thing.
    
    Some years ago, a publisher with a strong political leaning published
    catroon books for "new children."  As if there were anything like
    an "old child."  :-)
    
    Don't worry about yuppiedom; that's a label, too.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    John, I'm still here-it may be a few days before I can get a reply
    in here, this is our busiest week of the month, and I've been putting
    in some O.T.
    
    Doug

    re: .10
    
    	John, I said *some* crystals *may* have healing effects.   Now
    you want me to explain the mechanism?   How ridiculous!   We don't
    even know how asprin works !    Does that mean you doubt that it
    does?
    	Try remembering that having an *open* *mind* may actually
    be a realistic approach to life.
    
    	Alan.

    John, Alan,
    
    Most healing methods, whether crystals, a witch-doctor casting out
    the evil spirits, or modern medicine, work for a good part because
    the patient *believes* they will.  BTW, in response to .-1, I don't
    believe asprin works - it doesn't for me.  Must all be some kind
    of new-fangled hogwash...
    
    Elizabeth
    

I started to write a lengthy response to this note - I may yet - but first,
I'd like to address the author, John, with a question or two:
    
How do *you* explain the pain and suffering that befalls some people and
not others?  How do *you* explain why one person is born with a deficient
body or mind, while most others enjoy perfectly healthy lives?

And, please, no cop-outs.  I'd like your explanation for "why things
happen as they do".. that is, if indeed you have one.

Kip
    

>>Maybe so, but at least they attempt to validate their findings in ways we
>>can test.  That's a heck of a lot more than channelers, aura readers,
>>and quacks are willing to do.  Next time someone starts talking about
>>mystical vibrations and energy fields, ask him how all that was determined.

What dogma or concepts of religions can be tested?  How well do scientists
do in testing/explaining psychosomatic illnesses, what stress actually is and
how it works, emotional illnesses.  We have cut ourselves off from our 
intuitive nature in a big way in our modern society.  Scientists get really
caught up in cause and effect .....until they get down to the atomic particle 
level where it isn't so simple.  Establishment science deals primarily with
what is safe, what we know to be accepted fact... progress is made by exploring 
the unknown,... something that could risk the reputation (and grants and 
funding... which are primarily funded by DOD and lock scientists into 
Department of Defense values and priorities) of a lot of legitimate scientists. 
Many great mental leaps of knowledge were derived from the imagination.  There 
is so much we don't know.  The sheep will always find someone to follow... 
that risk is always there.  The Jim and Tammy Baker's and various charllatans 
will always bilk those willing to be bilked.  Blind faith in religion, 
government, or society appears to be a stupid, outmoded characteristic of 
the species.  
  


    >   If New Age represents anything it is the bringing into balance of
    science and faith, emotion and thought... < 

>>Perhaps, but I see very little science, some faith, a whole lot of emotion
>>and painfully little thought in the movement.

We have a scientific condition that has outstripped our species level of 
ethics.  We need more emotion.  We have leaders who discuss blowing away
half of our world without displaying a single emotion.  Our thoughtfull,
scientific past has brought us to the brink of annihilation.  The pendulum
is swinging in the other direction... perhaps it will go too far.. that 
happens.


    >  It would be accomplishing a lot if the New Age could free us all
    from the tyranny of those who seem to have an over-whelming desire to
    control the rest of us... through their old books or new papers or
    political establishment or military might or religious hog-wash. < 


>>To me this sounds like the *essence* of New Age!  How many books has Shirley
>>Mclane (sp?) written?  And what's this about "an overwhelming desire to
>>control?"  

None that say "you will go to hell if you don't do what we tell you",
None that say "you will be jailed if you don't do what we tell you",
None that say "you will not survive if you don't do what we tell you"

>>Seems to me that the point of the Harmonic Convergence was to reach
>>a "critical mass" of minds and effect the thoughts of people all over the
>>world.  And as for religious hog-wash, tell that to all the people shelling out
>>big bucks to hear "Ramtha" (and people think Jim and Tammy-Fae are charlatans!) 

Any critical mass effect (assume it is valid) would be a natural process 
inherent in our biological nature.  The suckers will seek out their own con
artist... (see what we mean by choosing your destiny?_:-)

p.s. Love noting with you John... Personal opinions aside,... an analytical 
mind is always appreciated_;-)                                    

    
    On the Scientific Method - my major in college was Engineering Science.
    
    With all that training, can I *prove* that God exists?  No.  About
    the only thing I can do is try to validate the stories in the Bible,
    thus lending some credibility to the text by finding Noah's Ark
    or things along this line.  Do I *believe* that God exists?  Yes.
    Hm - seems to be some sort of a contradiction here.  How can one
    believe in something which has not been proven via the current
    scientific method?  I don't have an easy answer.  What I do
    know is that when all else has failed and one time when my life
    was at an all time low, I turned to God and was shown the way out
    of my (major) dilemmas.  There were no parting of the waters, no
    burning bushes....but I did find myself in a bookstore staring at
    a shelf and wondering why the heck I was there and what I was supposed
    to be seeing.  Finally, my eyes rested on the book which was 
    instrumental in helping me out of my dilemmas and as a result I
    was able to turn things around dramatically as a result.
    
    This was not a one time event.  These things happen to me all the
    time.  I can't explain them within the structured bounds of the
    scientific method....and probably never will be able to explain
    them in that medium.  I can't explain them within the bounds of 
    structured (fundamentalist) Christianity either.    
    
    Along these same lines, I've noticed a lot of believers in God who
    take great liberty by explaining away their problems with statements
    such as "It was God's will."  That's a cop-out.  Every person is
    responsible for their own actions.  It is no different that the
    statement which became popular during the height of 'Laugh-In',
    "The Devil made me do it.".  Also a cop-out (but it did get quite
    a few laughs!).  I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions.
    If everyone else would do the same, then quite a few of the problems
    in the world would cease to exist.
    
    On the 'New Age' - for those people who believe this 'label' is
    the answer to the world problems, it is no wonder that the 'New
    Age' has been getting a lot of bad press.  I mentioned it to someone
    and he thought I was talking about some sort of cult.....confirmed
    skeptic that he is. *Sigh*.  I happen to believe that the point
    of the 'New Age' is the 'spirit' of the movement and not the 'letter' 
    of the movement.  The 'spirit' of the movement is to strive for
    a better world.
    
    I believe that the 'New Age' symbolizes a new beginning.  Get rid
    of the old hostilities, grudges, fears, and the helpless belief
    that each and every one of us has nothing to do with the world problems
    as they exist today.  That is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.  We are ALL involved,
    because we are all people and we all live on the SAME earth.  Whether
    you work on the micro level (help out your nextdoor neighbor or
    an individual on the street) or on the macro level (negotiating
    with the perceived enemy for ceasefires in the conflicts around
    the world), WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE AND WE CAN ALL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
    
    When you walk out of your little cubicle, give someone a smile,
    because they might not have one to give.  It's that simple.
                  
    I currently hold this supposed naive view that world peace is
    achievable.  For every person who doesn't believe this, there is
    that much more of a chance that others will follow suit and that
    we will indeed blow ourselves up.  For every person who would like
    to change that very negative scenario, it is that much less of a
    chance that we will blow ourselves up.  THE CHOICE IS YOURS. As
    you may have guessed, I've chosen the latter path.      
                                                       
    And that is what the 'New Age' means to me.
    
    Cindy
                   

John,

I understand where you are coming from. I have been a lover, perhaps even a
devotee of science as long as I can remember. When I graduated from high
school, I went to college for 1 semester, and decided I needed some time
to just to "discover the world". So I quit and just basically hung out. I
could make money playing rock and roll in a band, so I had a very flexible
life. This was during the late sixties (the height of the so-called summer of
love). This is where I first heard the term 'new age', only then people 
connected it with the age of aquarius (I assume for astrological reasons). It
was considered a new age because contemporary thinking about life and the 
universe was going through some major changes. People were questioning 
conventional wisdom and ideas about the nature of things, and arriving at
their own "new" ideas. 

Those times were almost magical for me. I had experiences that I could not
explain with conventional scientific models, and it awakened a part of me.
A lot of what I was experiencing had to do more with feelings and intuition
rather than the abosolute and concrete. There were definitly charlitans and
jerks around then, but anyone with half a brain could see through it.

But there was definitely 'something in the air', it's hard to explain. It was
almost like an excitement that everyone seemed to feel, and it was a global
phenomenon. 

There was a great spritual awareness that has not been felt since. I think 
the spiritual aspect was what appealed most to me most.
It was a very joyous time, a time when a lot of people were very loving and
gentle, supportive and not competing with one another. Of course this didn't
last too long, but for a brief period, it seemed like a golden age.

That's what new age meant to me, I don't know what it means now-a-days.

There was bullshit back then too. Like when everyone started talking about
"organic" foods. That one really got me ! But I realized that what people
really meant was "natural", just another example of what you were talking about
regarding misused scientific terminology. 

All in all, I wellcome anything that challenges our current worldview, since it
causes us to rethink old dogmas, and perhaps evolve to new spritual realms, and
the spiritual nature of all this is its true importance

RE: .16 (Alan)

Geez Alan, chill out.  I suspect we agree more than I have led you to believe.

    > John, I said *some* crystals *may* have healing effects.   Now you
    want me to explain the mechanism?   How ridiculous!   We don't even
    know how asprin works ! < 

Well, FWIW, we *do* know how aspirin works now.  Although I agree that that
has not always been the case, your using aspirin as an analogy is hardly
applicable.

An old remedy for aches and pains was to chew or brew white willow bark. It was
later discovered that the active ingredient in willow bark was *salicin*.
This led to the synthesis and use of salicylates, of which aspirin is a member.
The discovery of aspirin was a product of science, not superstition. Had someone
applied the type of thinking that is common among so many New Age thinkers, the
pseudoscientific explanation that "willow bark emits vibrations that balance
the body's aura" would have been acceptable and aspirin would never have been
discovered.  And if you don't believe people spout such hooey as explanations,
I suggest you look into "flower remedies" and the like.

To further illustrate my point (and bore you even more) I'll share another
story. Did you ever see "The Awakening Land," a TV movie staring Elizabeth
Montgomery? (Or was it "The Tender Land"? One of them is an opera by Copland).
Anyway, she plays a pioneer woman.  In one scene her husband becomes gravely
ill. Elizabeth calls on an old remedy that involves gathering a particular type
of moss, washing it in five bowls of water lined up in a row, and making a tea
of it.  When someone asks her what cured her husband, she replies, "Moss Tea.
It's the five washings that does it." 

Now all this isn't to say that herbal remedies don't work--many of them
work very well.  But they work because they contain chemicals that act on
the body in specific ways, not because of magical vibrations.  The truth
of this is not only beautiful and useful, but SAFER than relying on fantastic
interpretations.  

This brings us back to crystals.  Even if we could not explain exactly how
a drug worked, we could prove its efficacy by using it against placebos
in a blind test.  Try doing that with crystals and see what happens.

Oops!  The Cluster is about to go down!  I'll  get to the other replies
tomorrow!

John M.

John M.

     Welcome all to a grand display of enlightened, unenlightened
and then, my favorites, the dimly lit!  Which group do we belong
in?  I sure as shooting don't know, but I'd be willing to have 
some strong opinions.
     re: .4, .19  So nice to have you in this topic!  Your words are
so refreshing to read!
     re: .20, .21  There was nice stuff in there, too, from my
perspective.
     re: the rest:
     How nice to be clumped in together as "New Age movement!"
No distinctions at all, by one or two of you.  First off, isn't it
interesting that at least one of you "gets off" on argument?  No concept
of love here at all, just an idea to "Oh, boy, I get to manipulate or
be manipulated now...my day is made!"  Do you really think that this is
going to get anywhere?  Let me save some time and suggest, instead,
that you approach with a different attitude, i.e.,"what can I learn
here and perhaps I have something to offer, as well."  A further question
might be, why are you reading this stuff at all?  What is very clear to 
me is that, as I've stated elsewhere, there is an incredible effort 
being made here to be involved intellectually.  That's great, it's
wonderful, etc. but how long are you going to survive with that one?
What about the other components of what has been labeled the "limited"
self?  i.e., the BODY, the EMOTIONS and the INTUITION (as expressed by
.19)  I will presume that you have some awareness of your body, e.g.
when it aches, when it feels pain, etc.  I will also give you that you
have at least some degree of emotional expression.  Intuition?  Basically,
from the responses I'd say that it's largely undeveloped.  In short, then,
what I'm trying to say is that as a balance, most of us (myself included)
are probably not in parity.  That is, that most of us are probably imbalanced
with the intellect being the "culprit."  
    Without going on about that, and I certainly could, let me ask another
question.  WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE?  I grew up with priests
always in my household, going to Catholic schools and being very actively
involved with that religion, to the point that I was asked to serve on
a national level with an organization within that.  My knowledge of Christianity
is not terribly remiss (although it is very obviously slanted from the
Catholic perspective.)  I know what Christians believe because I was one
who believed similarly.  I no longer will believe in any organized religion
or any kind of worship.  To get to this step, it was somewhat scary.  I 
faced the possibility (the likelihood, from the Catholic point of view)
of going to hell for eternity.  Bad news, in most books!  Thank goodness
I have gotten past this incredible strangle-grip of fear that that religion
and most religions foist upon their members!  This is a very big hurdle
to overcome for a "dedicated" churchgoer.  I can certainly understand the 
reluctance to confront this.  I think this grip is exceptionally strong.
     Anyway, in my learnings, I have seen great revelations of the ways in
which "man" has worked to twist things to better himself and/or his causes.
Often this involves "Do it my way!..."  Why?  Usually because of a lack of
self-esteem or self-love.  Esteem must be earned and, unfortunately, this 
is again usually done from sources outside oneself e.g. "let me show you
how wonderful I am by showing you how much money I have, by showing you
who my ancestors were, by showing you what a wonderful body I have, by
showing you how smart I am, by showing you how superior my country is,
by showing you how superior my beliefs are to yours!"  Some of these
ideas fall apart more quickly than others...the body no longer can do
what it once could (by either beauty or strength) by the time a person
is 40-50 years of age.  Racism and it's cohorts (ancestry, country, etc.)
can become a disadvantage if someone moves into your neighborhood or you
go to theirs.  Membership in some organization can be predicated by
how smart you are or aren't or by the amount of money you have or don't.
Where does it end?  IT DOESN'T!  Self-esteem must, therefore, come
from within.  No need to control or dominate anyone then for THEIR
esteem of me.  No need then to make them do it "my way."  By the same
token, no need for them to try to force "their way" on me.  Religions
are quite "guilty" of doing this.  This conference is quite wonderful
and perhaps unique because it doesn't tell anyone that "This is what you
must do..."  You are free to believe or not, to use or not, to do as 
you pretty much want...as long as you are aware of your impact on others
as you do it.  Crystals don't work for you?  Don't use them!  You don't
see auras?  Don't worry about them.  You don't feel that scents influence
you?  Feel free to live in the pollution.  Herbs have no effect?  Continue
to be well or sick however you desire.  The byword here is "choice."  
It's yours.  You decide what makes you well, what makes you happy, etc.
I, for one, will not be a part of any flock of sheep to be led into any
numbed out pathetic following.  No one is telling you to, either.
     You don't believe you create your own reality?  That's okay, you can
be a victim of reality for however many lifetimes as you want (or at least
for this one.)  Make sure when you die, however, that as you vaporize or
whatever it is you'll do, you tell whoever it is that you can that it 
wasn't your fault, it was your third grade teacher's or maybe it was your
absentee father or maybe it was the DEJAVU noters or, maybe, just maybe,
it was GOD's fault.  You see, God had it in for you all along, you don't
know why, maybe it was because you didn't earn enough money or maybe
you didn't wear the right clothes.  Oh, so maybe you do create *some*
of your reality?  Really?  Which part?  And how much of it?  You don't
know?  Gosh!  Well, let's get ourselves some computers and try to figure
out which parts WE create and which parts everything else creates.  Oh, my
numbers don't look like yours?  Does that mean I will get to heaven first?
     You see, I am quite convinced that I create my own reality...all of it...
100%...and that you create yours as well.  The problem is that we're just
not consciously aware of it.  As you PRACTICE, however, you get better and
better at it.  This means letting go of the screwed up conceptions of the
consensus reality and really getting to it!  The biggest obstacle?  None 
other than the negative ego...who is with you from birth until death.
Not some demon, or some system or some anything else, but simply that
sob the negative ego, the most destructive thing known to "man."  
     I will be the first to admit that it's difficult (at least at first)
to understand the concept of a 6-month-old child choosing to die of
starvation.  And certainly as we see the beauty and the "innocence" there
it magnifies the repulsion.  But if (and this was covered in 358) we look
with different eyes, we can understand that it is not for us to judge
how someone else chooses to either come into this lifetime, to live it 
or to leave it.  Similarly, we cannot change anyone or anything or heal
someone...it is up to them to change or to be healed.  That you cannot
see the thought that might go along with that is simply a matter of not
understanding deeply enough.  Please, by all means show compassion and
love and caring.  And do offer the help, if it seems appropriate.  Understand
though, that the receiving end may refuse it, and the rationale or reasons
may never be understood.  
     Further, there are those among us, and in small numbers, who do practice
with strange systems.  Do they get positive results?  Yes, many of them
do.  As a certified massage therapist I can tell you that I went to school
to learn it and that though all of us in my class were exposed to the same
techniques, no two people will do it the same way.  The difference is NOT
strictly a mechanical difference.  There is a difference in BELIEF, there
is a difference in ATTITUDE, there is a difference that goes "esoteric."
Sure, many do jump on bandwagons, nothing new there.  Just because someone
has attached a label, doesn't mean that the results will be achieved.
     I suggest that either you make a very, very serious effort to TRY
these things yourself, to do them with a different attitude than the one
you presently have, to make every attempt to control the negative ego
voice that will tell you that it won't work, and then, and only then,
give up if you must.  Otherwise, leave the New Age to those who have
a much more positive, more open, more happy outlook on life and its
potentials than the approaches which you seem to have.  And to that end,
again, you've offered no alternatives.  Come up with a better idea, a more 
meaningful suggestion, an experience that others can draw significance
from, and I will be the first one in line to avail myself to that.
Because I want a certain quality in my life, and it is quality that
was lacking in my life for too very long, and the last half-dozen years 
of my life have added great depth to that quality (to be sure, there have
been great pains, as well.)  I want more, and whenever someone shows
me something better, I will use it.  As I have overcome some of my fears
and eliminated some of my angers (and I have had many...some still intact)
and made a real effort to love as much as I can, I have felt a greater
sense of understanding of myself and of life.  Try it, it very possibly
will work.  Or, if you choose, continue with what the consensus reality
says with predictable results.
  
Frederick

    	John, haven't we had this discussion somewhere else? ;-]
    
    	Anyway, one quick point...
    
.22> Now all this isn't to say that herbal remedies don't work--many of them
   > work very well.  But they work BECAUSE they contain chemicals that act on
   > the body in specific ways, NOT BECAUSE of magical vibrations.  The TRUTH
   > of this is not only beautiful and useful, but SAFER than relying on
   > fantastic interpretations.  [emphasis mine, except 'SAFER']
    
    	Your underlying view of the universe is that there is a TRUTH
    which resembles the typical western science paradigm of separate
    objects, acting in isolation except for occasional interactions.
    It also includes a lot more than that, but I want to emphasise that
    it does NOT necessarily include a monopoly on truth.
    
    	Now tell me...I expect you know a fair amount about Quantum
    Theory...what is a chemical besides a lot of "magical vibrations"?
    I would say NOTHING!! Old medicine doctors were not wrong. Wiccans
    are not wrong, rather they are sensative on a different level than
    the standard MD, who knows and cares nothing about the essense of
    the pharmacology, only what the Physician's desk reference says
    a particular tablet will do. If they follow statistics, the statistics
    say they won't be sued. Where is the intuition? Where is the deep
    understanding? Where is the subtle knowledge and the insight? Sorry,
    western science cannot afford those things anymore, the insurance
    premiums are too high.
    
    	I agree with the idea of being skeptical. I agree that there
    are rip-offs. However, there are MORE that use conventional scientific
    practices than a few who are now hawking New Age type things. You
    know plenty about the food industry (and I know you won't defend
    them!), and the industrial chemical industry, the nuclear industry...
    These are scams every bit as much as you seem to think 'crystals'
    and 'channeling' might be, except they are about a billion times more
    dangerous. In this case too, the people involved are probably believers
    in what they do...that doesn't make it OK, if what they are doing
    is at odds with how the world, how nature, how the structure of
    lived existence really operates.
    
    	What is my point? That we need to let go of the idea that science
    is CORRECT and everything else must be explained in that framework.
    That is an intrinsically limiting assumption. The problem is that
    science, as we know it, has no foundation. None. It is a house of
    cards, built on ideas that are now known to be riddled with incorrect
    assumptions. Can we repair the foundation? Not without tearing the
    whole house down. Better to start with a new foundation, and start
    with a simple cottage, and see how many aspects of existence we can
    coax into living in it.
    
    	There is the world, and then there are ideas about how the world
    works. You seem to think that Newton had God whispering in his ear
    or something. That's just not true. All observations of the world
    are on an equal footing. If you prefer a particular vocabulary,
    if you get a warm fuzzy feeling from reading about wave equations
    and quantum-electrodynamics, well that's just fine. Just leave me
    alone when I mention that a particular peach has gotten too "Yin",
    or that a polished obsidian crystal is the "Yang" energy that I
    need for a meditation, or that my quartz crystal ball is in tune
    with Jupiter. We might use some of the same words, but our vocabularies
    are skewed. If we are patient, and understanding, and open, I think
    we can all learn something.
    
    	And if you want a mechanism for WHY some of these things work,
    just ask. I'd be happy to give my theory of time and universal
    vibrations ... and it makes at least as much sense as Bell's Theorem.
    
    	This is longer than I meant it to be, Oh well...
    
    	Ed
    

    Re .22/.24:
    
    Preserve us!  Let's not go into too deep a rathole here.
    
    The fundamental trappings of "science" [an overworked tag] may be
    shaky, but in terms of repeatability, etc., the scientific method
    has enabled us to progress materially enough so that its spinoff
    technologoes enable us to converse this way in DEJAVU.
    
    Does "science" have all the answers?  No, and at least one organization
    was once formed to make sure all the little embarrassments were
    not lost [the Fortean Society].  But that doesn't mean it isn't
    effective.
    
    During the time of Paracelsus, herbalists prepared medicines on
    the basis of the Theory of Signatures (that is, the herb had some
    resemblance to the part of the body it would be used to treat);
    e.g., scullcap looked somewhat like a portion of the skull, and
    proves to work as a mild tranquilizer.  The Theory of Signatures
    isn't 100 percent, but it worked enough to be somewhat better than
    pure chance.  Mystic?  Perhaps; and if so, accept it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .12
    
    > Another thing I suspect but have no proof for is that sumbunal
    > New Age concepts are slightly facist.  What??? Yes, slightly,
    > perhaps facist to a low degree.  What else would you call a
    > philosophy that stipulates that all non-adherents will die off?
    > (Where is Topher when I need him?? B^).
    
    Right here.  Not fascism (definititions vary but essentially the
    term refers to right wing totalitarianism inforced through violent means)
    unless there is exhorting to take violent personal action to bring
    about the death of the non-adherents.
    
    How about "apocalypticism".  That word is defined, in part, in
    Webster's Third New Intn'l Dictionary (Unabridged, 1976) as:
    
    	A docrine distinguished by the expectation of the imminent
    	end of the temporal world, the final destruction of the
    	unrighteous in a purging holocaust engulfing the earth, and
    	the resurrection of the righteous to a purified world of bliss.
    
    Seems pretty appropriate (I can't resist a personal challenge).
    
    				Topher

RE: .0
    
    > there are reasons to believe "Ramtha" is a fake.
    
    I have to admit I know very little about Ramtha.  What are those
    reasons?  I'm interested in evidence that Ramtha is a deliberate,
    conscious fake by his channel, not evidence that is easily explained
    on the assumption that Ramtha is a product of the channel's
    subconscious appearing through well known mechanisms.  Evidence
    of the channel's venility or willingness to make a buck off of Ramtha
    is not adequate (who is Ramtha's channel, anyway?).
    
    > Uri Geller is a *proven* fake.
    
    Since you are being so insistent on scientific rigor in all thinking
    I'll have to beg to differ.  Uri Geller has been shown to use trickery
    on a few occasions.  On many more occasions Uri Geller has performed
    feats that *might* have been done with trickery.  A number of Uri
    Geller's feats have so far failed to be explained (despite essentially
    fraudulent claims by critics to have duplicated or explained all
    his techniques).
    
    Particularly tough to explain is William? Cox's simple and elegant
    test of Geller's key bending claims.  Mr Cox is a magician (I've
    seen him perform at dinner when he was rather tipsy, adequate though
    not great) and a member of one of the major professional magicians'
    organization (I think its the International Brotherhood of Magicians
    though I wouldn't swear to that).  The setting was informal but
    never-the-less very hard to explain.  Mr. Cox used his own key,
    a glass table and a small hand mirror.  He first attempted to rock the
    key on the table to assure that it was flat (both sides, of course).
    He then placed the key flat on the table, placed his finger on
    the body and put the mirror under the table pointing upward in such
    a way that he had a good clear view of both sides of the key.  Then
    (and only then) Geller was allowed to stroke the arm of the key
    with one finger.  The key seemed to arch.  When Geller stepped away
    the key was again checked by rocking at approximately the same spot
    and was found to be bent.
    
    There is no question that Geller's proven willingness to supplement
    whatever real ability he has (perhaps none, of course) with trickery
    means that nothing he does can be given much credence.  This is
    a far cry, though, from saying that Geller has been *proven* to
    be a fake, i.e., that he produces all his "effects" via fakery.
    At best the statement is sloppily expressed since it implies much
    more than is justified; at worst it shows sloppy, unscientific
    thinking (specificly, over generalization).
    
    Normally, I would have let the statement pass, but given that you
    were busy berating others for "sloppy unscientific" thinking I could
    not let it pass.
    
    					Topher
    

    
    Okay, I'll throw in my two cents worth.  .23 is right everyone to
    a cetain extent creats their own reality.  My major problem with
    some of the New Age Doctrines is that people are content to sit
    back and hope that someone or a higher being is going to make things
    easy for them.  Sorry kids, it wasn't easy to get the world into
    the state it is in, and it won't be easy to solve most of the problems
    in it.  Putting vague magical or otherwise energy into the system
    and hoping for the best merely gets fuzzy results.
    
    Get busy and put some physical energy into your goals.  The planet
    is choking in its own garbage?  Recycle.  Think about what you buy
    and cut down on use-it-once-then-toss-it-away items.  Hate "Plastic"
    (IE not natural fiber) clothing?  Write your textile people and
    explain why you buy more imports.  Donate time and or money to your
    local Sierra Club or Greenpiece Chapters.  Pick up the trash you
    pass by when you're out walking or jogging.  In short, think about
    the consequences of your own actions and work to create a better
    reality for everyone.
    
    Having been a member of the pagan community in my area for years,
    (another New Age Faddist Religion .0?) I've found that people who are
    willing to put forth actions as well as energy seem to get better
    results in whatever they are doing or attempting to do.  Those who
    just want to "float with the cosmos" or something simaler get floaty
    results in their life and everything they want their higher beings
    and/or selves to do for them.  
    
    I don't want to sound judgemental to those who are happy floating,
    it just that personal experience and growth have taught me that
    even with the goddesses, actions speak louder than mantras.
    
    Meg  
    
    
    
    

RE: .18 (Kip)

Sorry I couldn't get to your reply sooner.

    > How do *you* explain the pain and suffering that befalls some people
    and not others? < 

Things happen simply because they happen.  No one's life is ever without
pain or suffering, even if they are born kings.  The degree of pain and
suffering is the product of many, many factors; some within our control,
and some outside of it.  "The rain falls on everyone, good and evil alike."


    >  How do *you* explain why one person is born with a deficient body or
    mind, while most others enjoy perfectly healthy lives?   < 

Why are some tadpoles eaten by water beetles while others are not?  Why
are some pigs born deformed while others are healthy?  Why do some flies
end up in spider webs while others live their entire lives unmolested? 
Why does only one sperm cell go on to unite with the egg and become human
while the other 3 million perish?  The universe does not revolve around
humankind--all of creation takes its chances.  That's life.  Don't look
for some cosmic explanation, because there isn't one (or one that you will
understand).

Have I answered your question? 


RE: .23 (Frederick)

Whom did you wish to respond to your reply?                   
    

RE .24 (Ed)


    >  John, haven't we had this discussion somewhere else? ;-] < 

Yes, but you didn't think you could get away from me that easily, did you?
:-)
   

    > Now tell me...I expect you know a fair amount about Quantum
    Theory...what is a chemical besides a lot of "magical vibrations"? I
    would say NOTHING!!  < 

Ah, but those vibrations can be described..even measured.  Try doing that
with supposed metaphysical "vibrational energies."



    > Where is the intuition? Where is the deep understanding? Where is the
    subtle knowledge and the insight? Sorry, western science cannot afford
    those things anymore, the insurance premiums are too high. < 

I had a wonderful doctor in Belmont who would not fit your description. Neither
would Dr. John McDougal, for that matter.  And if insurance premiums are
too high, I daresay it is the judiciary who is to blame and not scientists! 
    


    >  I agree with the idea of being skeptical. I agree that there are
    rip-offs. However, there are MORE that use conventional scientific
    practices than a few who are now hawking New Age type things.... < 

I'm not so sure about that.  You are right that there are scams in the food
industry etc., but that is not the result of faulty knowledge or lack of
knowledge so much as *misdirected* knowledge.  These misguided pronouncements
are able to be corrected by the same knowledge that was twisted to form
them.  For instances, science tells us that we need proteins, carbohydrates,
vitamins and minerals to survive.  This knowledge has been used to form
"The Four Food Groups" from which we are told to eat for a balanced diet.
And while it is true that a balanced diet can be achieved by selecting from
the meat, milk, vegetable and grain categories, only the *vegetable* category
is really necessary for balanced nutrition.  The Four Food Groups were formed
to ensure that the public supported the four major food industries, not
because such foods are inherently necessary.  People now realize this and
are applying the knowledge that formed the Four Food Groups (that proteins,
carbos, vitamins and minerals could be found in the groups mentioned) to
a strictly vegetable diet.  The knowledge was sound all along; only the
application was suspect.  That can't be said for healing crystals and the
like.


    >  The problem is that science, as we know it, has no foundation. None.
    It is a house of cards, built on ideas that are now known to be riddled
    with incorrect assumptions. Can we repair the foundation? Not without
    tearing the whole house down. Better to start with a new foundation,
    and start with a simple cottage, and see how many aspects of existence
    we can coax into living in it. < 


Ed, are you serious?!  The scientific method is one of building upon the
longest-lasting facts.  The crude experiments of Volta and Galvani are the
basis behind the very computer I am typing on.  Science is an ongoing process
of building and testing.  It is the very best method we have for getting at the
truth.  Someone who claims to derive their "truth" from a spirit or elf or
cards is spouting no more than worthless opinion since what they say can't
*really* be put to the test. 
    

    > There is the world, and then there are ideas about how the world
    works. You seem to think that Newton had God whispering in his ear or
    something. < 

You mean he didn't? ;-)

Newton never claimed that his knowledge came from some disembodied being
and then charged people $100.00 a crack to find out what the spirit said!
I can pretty much test Newton's claims...and have!  So can you, so can a
Geisha in Japan.  And the experiment will work whether the person is
"receptive" or not.  That, my friend, is the earmark of truth.  Just try such
proofs with spiritualist hokum.


RE: .25 (Steve)

You know, I really agree with the bulk of what you said!  I'll just take
exception to one little thing:


    >... scullcap looked somewhat like a portion of the skull, and proves
    to work as a mild tranquilizer.  The Theory of Signatures isn't 100
    percent, but it worked enough to be somewhat better than pure chance.
    Mystic?  Perhaps; and if so, accept it. < 

OK, so skullcap looks like a skullcap.  Might not such mystics have assumed
that it would be good for what was *over* the skull (the hair) as what was
*under* it?  That skullcap happens to have a tranquilizing effect (if it
does... it doesn't work for me) is a product of serendipity.  Hops are said to
have the same effect, yet they don't look like any human organ.  Ditto for
passion flower.   For every plant that looks like the thing it is supposed to
effect, there are 20 that do not.  I suggest that the theory of signatures is
not better than chance, but rather is the very *product* of chance. 

RE: .27 (Topher... is that short for Christopher?)

Ramtha is the brainchild of a woman named J.Z. Knight.  She lives in Tacoma,
Washington.  I live in Seattle and would just LOVE to have a personal
consultation....except that costs about $400.00 (Jim and Tammy look out!).
I have seen her on TV and can't believe that people would pay good money
to hear someone spout the most general of generalities.

Although I am still investigating Ramtha, my reasons for believing "he"
is a fake are my own.  For instance, I'd like to know why Ramtha can't speak
Egyptian if he is an ancient Egyptian warrior.  Really, if Ramtha can see
into the lives of people everywhere, why can't he speak all languages? 
Why does an ancient Egyptian speak with a slight English accent?  

Men have low voices because their vocal cords are thicker.  Ramtha has no
body.  Why then does J. Z's voice lower whenever Ramtha speaks?  J.Z. has
a woman's vocal cords.

Whether Ramtha is the product of J. Z.'s subconscious or a deliberate act does
not make him any more real.  What we DO know is that this woman is making very
big bucks off her believers.  The mind reels at the payola Jesus, Buddha and
Mohammed could have raked in!  


RE: Uri Geller

Uri Geller has been debunked so many times, I'm surprised he still dares to
show his face in public.  Johnny Carson (an excellent amateur magician)
thwarted Geller's attempts on TV because he knew how his tricks were done
and how to foul them up.  The spoon and key bending schitk is known to
just about every professional magician (Geller used to be a magician, BTW).

Uri Geller is a shining example of the adage that people will believe what
they are led to believe.  I'll let you in on a secret: do you know that
about 20 people think I can tie a cherry stem with my tongue?  Well, I can't.
I take it out of my mouth, tie it, and put it back in.  I do this so casually
that the person can be looking right at me and never even notice!

Aside from seeing the Carson episode, I have read many articles chronicling
how Geller has been caught in his tricks.  The best one I read was in a
science magazine.  One of the things Geller was supposed to do was expose
film with his mind.  Well, unbeknownst to Uri, there was a wide-angle lens
on the camera.  The resulting picture shows Geller removing the lens cap!
There were many, many other examples.

Funny, today Uri also "Channels"...something he apparently never did in previous
years.  But like so many others now, he's surfing the wave of faddism on
the backs of the gullible.


    >   There is no question that Geller's proven willingness to supplement
    whatever real ability he has (perhaps none, of course) with trickery
    means that nothing he does can be given much credence.  This is a far
    cry, though, from saying that Geller has been *proven* to be a fake,
    i.e., that he produces all his "effects" via fakery... < 


One needn't prove that EVERYTHING he does is fake, only the bulk of it.

By your logic, the Bakkers must be inspired prophets of God!


RE: .28 (Meg)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing all that... this reply is way
too long as it is.  I am certainly in agreement with you!

John M.
                                                            

    You forgot to reply to me John_:-)  ....(I'm feeling left out and
    neglected)

    re.29     I really do have a friend who can tie a cherry stem
    with her tongue and DOES NOT remove it to do so! ;^Q
    
    T.

    ...What a straight line, but I'll resist. :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    John,
    
    One thing to remind you about hops and looking like a part of the
    human body,  The separate flowers do look like tits, and what could
    be more soothing than nursing at your mother's breasts.  In fact
    I read in some brewing manual (forgive me my mind is too cluttered
    to remember the name of the text,) that the best time to havest
    hops was when they had the texture of a full breast.  The signatures
    do have flaws, but so do many other methods of identifying herbal
    uses and for that matter medicinal drugs.
    
    Meg

    RE:.29,.31
    
    	John, Do you REALLY have to resort to trickery to tie a cherry
    	stem with your tongue??!! It's easy. really. :^)
    
    		Robert.

RE: .29

    > (Topher... is that short of Christopher?)

    Yup.

    > Ramtha is the brainchild of J.Z. Knight

    Thanks -- I was drawing a blank.

    > Although I am still investigating Ramtha, my reasons for believing
    > "he" is a fake are my own. [Various observations about
    > inconsistencies between Ramtha's claimed origin and Ramtha's
    > behavior].
    >
    > Whether Ramtha is the product of J.Z.'s subconscious or a deliberate
    > act does not make him any more real.

    This is, of course, not what you said before.  You said, "there are
    reasons to believe that 'Ramtha' is a fake."  As commonly used, the
    word is synonymous in this context with "fraud."  Either you have
    decided to modify your claims or you spoke initially with completely
    unscientific imprecision (something any of us can do, but a good
    scientist will, of course, admit to an error). 

    Poor scientific methodology in support of The Scientific Truth (the
    currently accepted range of scientific worldviews) does not make good
    science, whatever the claims of some members of CSICOP and their ilk. 

    People who have read this conference for a while know that I do not
    accept as either demonstrated or as likely that channeled personalities
    are external to the channeler.  Some (probably very few) are
    *conscious* fabrications of the channeler.  Most are the result of
    normal (i.e., non-pathological) though unusual non-conscious
    psychological mechanisms. 

    It takes, however, either a highly exclusionary or a carefully
    circumscribed definition of "real" to say that channeled subconscious
    personalities are not real.  Your conscious personality is equally a
    product of your subconscious, and its background is also a fabrication,
    though to a lesser degree.  All this is some of the most fundamental
    results in psychology, going back over a century to Meyers and James. 

    Although it is extremely unlikely that the Ramtha personality ever
    "lived" in ancient Egypt in any meaningful sense, it cannot be assumed
    that Ramtha knows this.  Ramtha is very likely describing his
    background as he "remembers" it.  *All* memories are constructs, built
    up from the relatively few facts which are actually stored (experiments
    are highly consistent with the theory that we store in our memories
    little more than those details which violate our assumptions (defaults,
    so to speak), and recreate entire "events" on that basis). Subconscious
    personalities do not have the accuracy constraints imposed by
    attempting to function on a day-to-day basis in the "real" world, and
    so may remember completely fictitious backgrounds. But those
    backgrounds are likely to be every bit as "real" to them as what you
    consider your own. 

    The personalities of the channeler and the channeled are of course
    related, but these relations are not always simple.  Ramtha could be a
    saint while Knight might be a devil (or vice versa, or they may both be
    one or the other, or somewhere in between).  Knight's venality is an
    almost necessary precondition for Ramtha to be a conscious fake, but
    far from implies it, and is almost irrelevant to determining Ramtha's
    personality given the assumption that Ramtha is a subconscious
    fabrication. 

    And of course, the willingness of Ms. Knight to openly accept/demand
    large fees for her services as a channel for Ramtha is not good
    evidence for her venality.  There are many good, honest people in our
    society who subscribe to a philosophy (called "Pure Capitalism") which
    includes the concept that the *proper* fee for a product or service is
    what people will pay for it; charging either more or less is, in the
    long term, destructive to society. (Before anyone starts an unnecessary
    argument about this, please note that I *strongly* disagree with this
    belief -- I only make what I am quite sure is a non-controversial
    statement: that some honest people hold this belief). 

    A minor nit -- Your argument about voice is, I think, a bit weak.  I
    think that it is quite plausible that if I shortened your vocal chords
    surgically, you would, for quite a while, speak in a deeper voice than
    someone who's vocal chords where naturally that length.  The reason is
    that the pitch of our voice is a product of both the natural length of
    the relaxed vocal chords and of a learned feedback based regulating
    mechanism. It is, for example, the movement of the target pitch out of
    the comfortable range of the vocal mechanisms which results in the
    "voice breaking" of adolescence. 

    So, once again -- do you have any evidence that Knight consciously
    fakes Ramtha? 

				Topher

RE: .29

    > The spoon and key bending schitk is known to just about every
    > professional magician (Geller used to be a magician, BTW).

    There is an incorrect (perhaps unintentional) implication here.  Metal
    bending is *now* part of the standard magical repertoire.  It was not
    before Geller appeared on the scene.  It was Geller's success that
    placed it there.  One or two metal bending tricks may have existed
    before then, but they were not common, and I have been unable to find
    any evidence for them in old magic catalogs or magazines.  Now you will
    find hundreds offered for sale. 

    (By the way, did anyone else see Randi doing metal-bending and table
    tipping tricks on the Carson show last night.  I think it was a repeat.
    With the table-tipping he used Houdini's old technique of doing things
    in such a way that it was obvious to the audience but confusing to the
    dupe (Carson in this case; who tried to pretend to be duped by Randi's
    rather simplistic demonstration).  With the metal bending, he did not
    reveal the trick, but it was pretty obviously a concealed set of
    clippers, which he had very ample opportunity to use -- a nice looking
    effect but not very impressive). 

    > One needn't prove EVERYTHING he does is fake, only the bulk of it. 

    What hypothesis are you trying to support?  *Has* it been proven that
    the bulk of what he has done is fake? 

    I would most certainly agree that one cannot use Geller as evidence for
    the existence of psychic phenomena -- but I would still say that even
    if he had never been caught in fraud. 

    I would also agree that it is highly plausible that Geller is a
    complete phony -- that all his effects are tricks.  Highly plausible
    though, is not the same thing as proven. 

    If you accept (as I do) on the basis of other evidence, personal or
    scientific, that psychic phenomena are not a priori unlikely, then it
    is also plausible, though less so, that he has "real" abilities which
    he supplements by trickery.  Such supplementation has been demonstrated
    in people who seem to honestly believe that they have "special"
    abilities (whether their abilities are real or illusory is irrelevant). 

    To the best of my knowledge what has been demonstrated about Geller is
    that 1) on a few occasions he has gotten caught cheating, 2) on some
    occasions where he has not been given the opportunity to cheat he has
    failed to perform, 3) many of his effects can be duplicated by ordinary
    means -- i.e., he had the opportunity to cheat (note that your using a
    trick to apparently tie cherry stems with your mouth does *not* mean
    that others do not actually do it).  This does *not* add up to a proof
    that the bulk of what he does is fake.  Plus, as I pointed out before,
    despite frequent claims by Randi and others, he has produced effects
    for which no plausible explanation has been presented. 

    > By your logic, the Bakkers must be inspired prophts of God! 

    I fail to see how that conclusion follows from my reasoning.  The only
    conclusion I come up with applying similar logic to the Bakkers is that
    it is *possible* that they have sincere religious beliefs and have
    managed to rationalize or otherwise resolve their behavior with it.
    Hardly a controversial statement. 

    By your logic, however, we may conclude from the fact that Randi has
    been caught making inaccurate statements that everything he says can be
    assumed to be a lie.  Thus his claims to produce his effects by
    prestidigitation are lies and he actually *is* a powerful psychic. :-)! 

    How did we get into Geller anyway?  I can't find any statements in
    DEJAVU that anyone thinks that Geller has not committed fraud.  I find
    one statement, from over a year ago, that the poster feels that Geller
    has actually produced real psychic effects as well as fraud.  Several
    other statements by a variety of people either saying that he is a
    fraud or that he is mostly a fraud and probably completely so.  I do
    not particularly associate Geller with New Age Thinking, his hay-day
    preceded the widespread use of that term.  I think that this is a
    straw-man.

				    Topher

RE: .30 (PARE)

I didn't respond because I agree with so much of what you said!  (Surprised?)


RE: .35 (Topher)
    

    > You said, "there are reasons to believe that 'Ramtha' is a fake."  As
    commonly used, the word is synonymous in this context with "fraud."
    Either you have decided to modify your claims or you spoke initially
    with completely unscientific imprecision (something any of us can do,
    but a good scientist will, of course, admit to an error). < 

I spoke with unscientific imprecision.  Note that I said "there are reasons to
believe..." I did not come right out and Say Ramtha was a fake.  However, I am
quite convinced that Ramtha is bogus. 


    >  Some (probably very few) are *conscious* fabrications of the
    channeler.  Most are the result of normal (i.e., non-pathological)
    though unusual non-conscious psychological mechanisms. < 

You have a strange perception of "normal."

Topher, whether or not the person consciously speaks for an "entity" is
beside the point.  Either way we are dealing with a figment of the person's
imagination, not an actual omniscient disembodied entity.  The channeler's
pronouncements are therefore no more mystical or enlightened than yours
or mine.
                                                            
    
    >  Subconscious personalities do not have the accuracy constraints
    imposed by attempting to function on a day-to-day basis in the "real"
    world, and so may remember completely fictitious backgrounds. But those
    backgrounds are likely to be every bit as "real" to them as what you
    consider your own.  < 

There is a world of difference between "real to them" and "real."  My aunt
has Alzheimer's and thinks my grandmother is 20 years old.  That does not
make my grandmother 20 years old, no matter what my aunt's conviction. 


    >  A minor nit -- Your argument about voice is, I think, a bit weak.  I
    think that it is quite plausible that if I shortened your vocal chords
    surgically, you would, for quite a while, speak in a deeper voice than
    someone who's vocal chords where naturally that length.  The reason is
    that the pitch of our voice is a product of both the natural length of
    the relaxed vocal chords and of a learned feedback based regulating
    mechanism. It is, for example, the movement of the target pitch out of
    the comfortable range of the vocal mechanisms which results in the
    "voice breaking" of adolescence.  < 

Thank you; I am well-versed in the physics of sound.

The point is that what we have is a woman trying to speak like a man.  There
is no need for Ramtha to lower his voice, unless this were some kind of
bizarre daily habit.  Anyway, why does a spirit need a sex?  Ramtha's voice
should be J.Z's voice. 


    >  So, once again -- do you have any evidence that Knight consciously
    fakes Ramtha? < 

No, sir, I do not.  Time will prove that for me.


RE: .36


RE: .29

    >> The spoon and key bending schitk is known to just about every
    professional magician (Geller used to be a magician, BTW). << 

    > There is an incorrect (perhaps unintentional) implication here.
    Metal bending is *now* part of the standard magical repertoire.  It was
    not before Geller appeared on the scene. < 


Even it that is true, what does that have to do with my statement?  The
truth is that Uri Geller performs the metal bending trick by trickery. That
has been exposed several times. 

    > What hypothesis are you trying to support?  *Has* it been proven that
    the bulk of what he has done is fake? < 

I believe it has.  His letter reading trick, object bending trick, film
exposure trick, and guess-what-object-is-in-the-canister trick have all been
exposed.  These are the only ones I remember right now, but the stack of
evidence is more than enough to convince anyone but the most gullible. 


    > Such supplementation has been demonstrated in people who seem to
    honestly believe that they have "special" abilities (whether their
    abilities are real or illusory is irrelevant). < 


I have such an ability.  I do not supplement it with trickery, nor do I
charge people for my service.  (I find lost jewelry... in a pile of leaves,
down a drain, under a bookshelf, anywhere!  And I do it within minutes). 


    >  How did we get into Geller anyway?  I can't find any statements in
    DEJAVU that anyone thinks that Geller has not committed fraud.  < 


Geller is now cashing in on the New Age craze.  He now claims to be a channeler
and that his "power" comes from other beings (at least that was the case
last time I heard from him).  I used him in passing as an example of a New
Age fraud.

John M.
                                                                     

RE: .37

    I'll respond to specific points made separately, but, as long as it is
    understood that the evidence you have is that Ramtha is not external
    to Knight, and that the "reasons to believe that 'Ramtha' is a [fraud]"
    are personal intuition and prejudice (non-pejorative sense), we have
    no major disagreements.  It is important to make clear that such a
    belief is not "scientific".  It is not even, in practice, a falsifiable
    theory.  It is simply a personal belief.

    In my experience most people in this area (and I am speaking in broader
    terms than just channeling) are generally sincere.  The frauds are
    quite rare.  Even most of the venal are sincere about the basic
    phenomena, they simply are either cynical enough or good enough at
    rationalizing for that not to stop them from getting what they want
    (e.g., money or power).  I would, to use your example, tend not to
    assume "pure" fraud for the Bakkers.  Rather I think that it is
    a priori more likely that they started with sincere belief and desire
    to "bring the word of God" (or their version of it) to people and
    were corrupted by the power they found themselves with.  I suspect
    that they sincerely believe all or most of the rationalizations which
    they have trotted out since the scandal became public.

    A scientific viewpoint goes into any investigation of paranormal claims
    with four hypotheses in mind:

	1) What is being claimed is what is occurring.
	2) Self-delusion or misinterpretation.
	3) Fraud.
	4) Almost any combination of the above.

    To fail to keep fraud in mind as a possibility invalidates any
    investigation.  But to assume it will almost certainly interfere with
    most meaningful investigations.  How much cooperation can you expect
    from someone when you make it clear that your purpose is to prove
    that they are a crook?  The most fruitful attitude to take is the
    scientific one -- that you must set up conditions so as to *falsify*
    the hypothesis of fraud, rather than trying to *prove* that fraud
    is taking place.  Surprisingly enough this is frequently the most
    fruitful tact to take even when fraud *is* occurring.  You would be
    surprised how many frauds happily go along with conditions which
    cannot but reveal their fraud, when the testing is presented in a
    non-confrontational manner.  (I take this as supportive to the idea
    that in many cases even those using fraud have sincere beliefs).

    Unfortunately, those who go into each investigation with an assumption
    of fraud (as far as I know, I am *not* talking about John, who has
    restricted his pre-assumption to Ramtha) create a climate of counter-
    hostility which makes *all* investigation of this area difficult.
    Every investigator must overcome an initial, understandable, fear on
    the part of most subjects that the investigator is out to "get" them
    rather than wanting to honestly understand and learn.

				    Topher

    re: .37
         
    >>I didn't respond because I agree with so much of what you said!
    >>(Surprised?)
    
    Nope,... I know a closet New Ager when I see one_;-)

RE: .37

    > You have a strange perception of "normal".

    The term is stretched but not broken.  As I said, I used the term
    specifically to denote a lack of psychopathology.  There does not
    seem to be any strong connection between "trance channeling" and
    psychopathology.  Some forms of psycho- or neuro- pathology may
    include symptoms resembling "trance channeling" but the converse
    does not seem to be true -- trance channeling frequently manifests
    without any sign of pathology, then or later.  Hand washing can
    be a symptom of psychopathology (obsessive/compulsive disorder) but
    simply washing ones hands does not indicate that you need psychological
    help.

    I used "normal" rather than "non-psychopathological" quite deliberately
    for its overtones.  The people who channel the personalities we
    hear about -- those who have a long term coherence and stability and
    who have something to offer which some people wish to hear -- represent
    the exceptionally talented in this area.  They represent the extreme
    range of the normal.

    But channeling represents a spectrum of phenomena which starts with
    the completely commonplace -- Freudian slips, seemingly purposeful
    memory lapses, choices of words with multiple meanings, etc.; through
    various dream phenomena (every time you "talk" to someone in a dream
    you are addressing a subconscious, "channeled" personality); on
    through a variety of more-easily-perceived-as-channeling phenomena.
    Almost anyone, with a bit of practice, can channel a personality
    with a pendulum (look elsewhere in this conference for warnings -- this
    is an easier but more clumsy version of Ouija and the same dangers
    are there), Ouija is almost as easy when you have at least two people,
    Ouija with a single person takes a bit more practice but a significant
    percentage of the population can make it work; then there is (waking)
    automatic writing and, most difficult of all, waking automatic talking.
    All of these are much easier given some form of trance induction such
    as hypnosis.  None of this takes conditions too far outside the
    everyday and none of it requires a very rare person -- I would guess,
    conservatively, that coherent, fairly stable, trance channeling can
    be produced with practice and hypnosis in about one person in five.

    In other words -- channeling may not be an "everyday" phenomena but
    it is pretty common and normal.

				Topher

RE: .40

    >    Almost anyone, with a bit of practice, can channel a personality
    with a pendulum (look elsewhere in this conference for warnings -- this
    is an easier but more clumsy version of Ouija and the same dangers are
    there)... < 


Whoa Topher!  Since when did this classical Psych 101 trick become mystical?
The pendulum trick works on unconscious movement.  In the traditional parlor
game you hold a little weight by a thread over your hand.  You tell the
person that if you are male, it will make a circle and if you are female,
it will swing back and fourth.  Sure enough, it will swing in circles for
men and back and fourth for women.  Switch the two modes of swinging and
try with a new group....you'll get the same results.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by holding a pendulum and simply thinking
"circle" or "line."  The Pendulum will eventually swing in that manner.
Unconscious movement relies on small muscle movements that occur when arms are
held held out or not braced.  The pendulum trick (and the Ouija board, which is
a variation of the same principle) will not work if the subject's hand is well
braced.  This phenomenon has been described and understood for many years. 


RE: .41 (Mistovitch)

It takes as much effort for a woman to lower her voice as it does for a
man to lower his voice.   To lower the voice the vocal coards must be
contracted... this takes conscious effort.  Try speaking in the lowest voice
you can and you'll see what I mean.


John M. 

RE: .42
    
    > Whoa Topher!  Since when did this classical Psych 101 trick become
    > mystical?
    
    Whoa yourself!  Since when did I say anything about it being
    "mystical".  I quite clearly said the exact opposite (I'm ignoring
    the usual misuse of the word "mystical", it has, after all, been
    abused so often that this non-technical sense has entered the
    dictionary.  By the technical meaning of the word, people who depend
    on "channels" for spiritual experience are by definition *not*
    mystics).  This discussion would be much more coherent (and fun)
    if you would respond to comments *in context* -- objecting to a
    point which was not made does not particularly add to things.
    
    As I said before I believe that it is *very* likely that all channeled
    personalities are simply manifiestations of the channelers
    subconscious.  I said that this is a quite "normal" phenomena, a
    term you objected to.
    
    I was supporting that view.  If you treat the pendulum as a
    personality, able to provide you with "yes-no-Ican'tAnswer-
    Iwon'tAnswer" responses for horizontal/vertical/clockwise/
    counter-clockwise movements (not necessarily in that order) then
    you are channeling.  You are likely to get coherent, at times
    unexpected, answers to your questions.  In my opinion the dangers
    are psychological and perhaps parapsychological (there's some real
    nasty characters down there) rather than being from spirits, but
    no less real for that, as experience has shown.
    
    It is a *normal* psychological phenomena, requiring conditions very
    little different from the everyday (conditions: holding a pendulum,
    asking it questions and expecting an answer) to manifest.
    
    The importance of it being normal is two-fold.
    
    Clearly the person who believes that some particular group (possibly
    all) of channeled personalities are spirits external to the channeler,
    should take into account that personalities can and frequently do
    manifest directly from the subconscious.  This does not eliminate
    the possibilities that the channeled entity is never-the-less directly
    influencing the channeler's muscles or that the entity is planting
    the information in the channeler's subconscious.  But it does mean
    that the manifestation of a coherent, even highly "developed",
    personality does not constitute by itself evidence for this.
    
    On the other hand, for the debunker (as opposed to the scientist)
    the normality of these phenomena means that one cannot assume fraud
    simply because of the manifestation of an alternate personality.
    Even a very mercenary person may find themselves able to channel
    a personality which meets their needs.  (As the old joke goes, and
    as Nixon found out -- that you are paranoid doesn't mean you don't
    actually have enemies).  I would even say that a person who seeks
    fame, power, or fortune is more likely than a person who does not
    to channel an personality who might gain those goals for them.
    
    					Topher

    re .43:
    
    >I was supporting that view.  If you treat the pendulum as a
    >personality, able to provide you with "yes-no-Ican'tAnswer-
    >Iwon'tAnswer" responses for horizontal/vertical/clockwise/
    >counter-clockwise movements (not necessarily in that order) then
    >you are channeling. ...
    
    Um.  But is that necessary?  In those relatively rare radiesthesic
    experiments I've done, I've assumed that I was pulling all the answers
    from my subconscious, not through some sort of "channeled entity."
    Oddly, the responses were at least as accurate as my conscious beliefs,
    sometimes more accurate.
    
    Why make things harder than necessary?  Is there any advantage to
    treating the subconscious as a separate channeled entity?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .44
    
    No Steve it isn't neccessary.  If you enter the experiment with
    the expectation that you are going to be contacting a personality
    which is an aspect of your own personality, then you are quite
    likely to get agreement from the resulting personality that it is
    "simply" an aspect of your own subconscious.  This applies to all
    channeling (there are no guarentees, however, you don't always get
    what you expect or are looking for).  If you are using the pendulum,
    for example, to help you remember where you put your car keys, it
    is probably completely unnecessary.
    
    >Why make things harder than necessary?
    
    Why is it harder?
    
    > Is there any advantage to treating the subconscious as a separate
    > channeled entity?
    
    The most important (which, as it happens, is the only reason relevant
    to this discussion) is because it provides perspective on channeling
    phenomena.  If you want to experiment with channeling than this
    is one way to do so.
    
    A second reason is that although not exactly true it is probably
    at least as true as treating the answers as strictly coming from
    "you".  One of the most basic facts about the subconscious is that
    it has "its own" goals and methods.  Treating the pendulum as a
    comunications device to an independent (though not external)
    personality can help you keep in mind (so to speak :-) that the
    "pendulum" may have its own reasons for the answers it gives.  In
    other words, even if you don't encourage a fully coherent personality,
    the pendulum will act to a certain extent as if it is.
    
    Finally, it may work smoother and reflect a deeper level of your
    subconscious if you take that attitude.  Then again it may not.
    It all depends on whether, for you, it helps with the neccessary
    suspension of disbelief and diffusion of responsability, or hinders
    them.
    
    On the other hand -- looking for an independent personality to control
    the pendulum increases the risks associated with using the pendulum.
    It quite *explicitly* represents a certain extent of surrender of
    responsability for what is happening.  If done wrong, e.g., if a sense
    of *ultimate* responsibility is abandoned, then their can be rather
    unpleasant results.
    
    						Topher

    re .45:
    
    >>Why make things harder than necessary?
    
    >Why is it harder?
     
    I think it adds an unnecessary "layer" of thinking; also,
    
    >It quite *explicitly* represents a certain extent of surrender of
    >responsability for what is happening.  If done wrong, e.g., if a sense
    >of *ultimate* responsibility is abandoned, then their can be rather
    >unpleasant results.
    
    "Harder" doesn't necessarily mean "more difficult to accomplish";
    it can also mean "more difficult to deal with."
    
    But then, I've trained myself to accept what "I'm" telling "myself."
    It might be an aid for others.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    

    
    	Each person's subconscious mind *is* a separate personality.
    If you are not willing to communicate with it directly, then it
    has to use indirect methods such as phobias, obsessions, dreams
    or sensations, to get through to you.    In this sense ouija boards
    or pendulums might both be used for communication with the subconscious.

        I have never been completly convinced that *any* channeled
    entity really is an *entirely* separate being, since I know the
    subconscious will go to great lengths to have ongoing communication
    with the conscious self.    I don't think the subconscious really
    prefers one role to another, it mainly just wants you to listen !
    I'm not sure it would ever be possible to *prove* whether any
    particular entity is a part of the self, or a separate portion.
    In some cases one might simply ask !   Edgar Cayce told listeners
    that his information source was his own "higher self", not an
    entirely separate being.
    
    	I have often wondered about Jane Robert's Seth, who, when he
    spoke, had Jane's husband waiting to write down each word.   This
    alone was enough of a "payoff" to fuel the ongoing relationship.
    Before Seth came along, did Jane's husband spend that much time
    paying attention to her?   Jane's "Aspect Psychology" indicates
    that she believed Seth (and also "Jane") to be an aspect of
    herself.

        Ira Progoff wrote a book on Eileen Garrett, where he came to
    the conclusion that her four main channelled personalities, were
    personifications of aspects of her own mind.   She did not
    dispute his conclusions.   He pointed out that even though these
    may not have been entirely separate beings, much of the information
    recieved was profound and interesting.    Other beings, contacted
    through her guides, *may* have really been separate spirits.

	Another point of view might be that we are *all* aspects of
    God's mind.   In that case worrying about subconscious VS separate
    beings is a mistake since we would all have access to the 
    "universal unconscious."

    	In the final analysis, it is not who is speaking, but what is
    being said that is the most important.
    
    	Alan.

    John, I'd like to make a comment about your objections to the medium
    who produces "Ramtha." 
    
    You criticized Knight, Ramtha's medium, for having Ramtha speak in her
    voice (English, with a "slight English accent"), and then for *not*
    speaking in her voice -- for lowering it when she spoke. To me, this
    sounds like playing both ends against the middle. It seems unfair to
    snidly criticize the Egyptian warrior for using the normal voice of the
    medium, and then to criticize the warrior for not using the normal
    voice of the medium. I'd feel better if you criticized one or the other
    as long as you avoid both -- it sounds shrill. 
    
    Also, Topher brought up that when one relaxes, one's voice pitch drops.
    I would *expect* someone in a trance to lower their voice. 
    
    	Jon

RE: .47

    > Each person's subconscious mind *is* a separate personality

    It will come as no surprise that I basically agree with what Alan
    says.  I do have a minor disagreement, however, with his choice
    of words.

    In "reality", of course, the subconscious and the conscious represent
    a single personality (or person).  Our ideas of what a personality
    *is*, however, our everyday model so to speak, is based on a very much
    simplified picture based on our interactions with the "conscious"
    personality.  We see, to use the standard metaphor, only the tip
    of the iceberg.  The complete iceberg of a mind, however, is not
    only very much larger than the part we can see -- its very much more
    complex.  Another metaphor is that the conscious personality is
    to a complete mind like a shadow is to the complete (internal and
    external) body.

    We can take a stab at applying our everyday model of a personality
    to the reality of the complete mind by saying that the complete
    mind is a community of personalities, one of which is the conscious
    personality which we are familiar with.  This view is not "true"
    but it is closer to being true than just looking at the conscious
    personality.

    What it does not discuss is the relationship between these
    personalities.  Partly, the answer is that we don't know -- we know
    less about the interior of our own minds than we do about the interior
    of the Sun.  We can, however, look at more models and metaphors which
    give us some framework on which to hang what we do know.

    Here is a metaphor which I find useful (lifted, as it happens, from
    a description of G-d in the Kaballah): we can think of the mind as
    a great, irregular, multifaceted jewel.  Each facet is a personality.
    To each facet, including the one we think of as ourselves, the rest
    of the jewel, both the interior and the other facets, represent their
    "subconscious".

    This metaphor is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really capture
    the full complexity.  The "separate" personalities can have many
    relations to each other -- one personality may be aware of another
    as external to itself, or it may be aware of another as another part
    of itself, or it may be entirely unaware of the other.  A personality
    may be created at need and disappear moments later, or it may, in some
    sense, continue to exist.  A personality may be very simple-minded
    or more sophisticated than the conscious personality.  A personality
    may be as evil as can be imagined (we *all* have the devil inside us
    somewhere -- this is where the danger in direct probing lies); may
    be as selfless and wise as can be imagined (and *this* is why *some*
    channeled personalities may be worth listening too); or it may lie
    somewhere between.  It may have skills that the conscious personality
    lacks (somewhere inside me there is someone who is good at spelling,
    if only I could get in touch with them).  Many of the personalities
    can not really be called human, their perception of their environment
    is so alien to our environment that they cannot be judged by the
    standards we apply to "people" we are familiar with -- to some extent
    that is true for *all* subconscious personalities.

    Most important, the "depth" to which each personality, especially the
    conscious, is aware varies from moment to moment.  Sometimes "we" are
    very much on the surface of our mind, completely out of touch with
    our own more subtle motives, and at other times we may see (I don't
    mean intellectually) much more of ourselves.

    A very common model which I think is better avoided is that the
    subconscious is a *single* personality.  Really, the only fact that
    this communicates is the relative independence of the subconscious
    from the conscious but it implies that it is equal in size and/or
    complexity to the conscious.  I suspect that Alan didn't really intend
    to imply this, but I thought it was best to emphasize that this is
    really only a little better than ignoring the subconscious completely.

    Ultimately, the mind is what the mind is, and we lack the conceptual
    tools (and the knowledge) to really understand it.  We are left with
    such inadequate metaphors as I have presented.

				    Topher

RE: .48
    
    So John doesn't think I'm picking on him (:-) let me come to his
    defense.
    
    Language and accent are products of the *mental* part of speech
    production.  Too a first approximation, pitch is a product of the
    *physical* part of speech production.
    
    Presumably the mental part would come with the channeled entity
    while the physical part would come from the channeler.  John was
    commenting that the pattern was *exactly* the opposite, the channeled
    personality seemed to be using the mental mechanisms of the channeler
    but trying to "compensate" for the differences in the physical
    parts of the mechanism.
    
    Where John and I disagreed was that John felt that the first
    approximation to pitch (it being physical) is adequate to evaluate
    the situation; while I felt that we don't understand the (2nd order
    approximation) contribution of the mental (feedback mechanisms)
    to judge the pitch-shift as evidence for the external nature of
    Ramtha.  I don't disagree with John's overall conclusion, only on
    whether that single piece of evidence is meaningful.
    
    I *could* justify the lack of language change by hypothesizing that
    the neural speech centers are supplied by channeler not by the
    channeled -- that the translation of ideas into speech is done by
    the channelers brain (not mind).  This is not implausible but 1)
    In my opinion it stretches, it decreases the value of the lack of
    Egyptian as evidence but only by a little; 2) It throws away the
    justification for the changes in speech patterns that many channeled
    personalities *do* demonstrate (including the astounding 98% pure non-
    latenate root "speech" of Patience Worth) 3) Once we accept that
    my counterhypothesis for Ramtha's "deep" voice falls flat on its
    face and that becomes a strong argument.
    
    As to the relaxation of voice argument -- I don't buy it.  I haven't
    heard Ramtha's voice, but very few women's voices will drop enough
    simply by relaxation to sound like they are trying to sound like
    a man.  I am personally well aquainted with that phenomena since
    it occurs almost universally in hypnosis.  A women's voice gets
    distinctly huskier, but, except for a few individuals where not
    much is "needed" it doesn't sound any more masculine than their
    normal speaking voice.  I would have to hear Ramtha myself to be
    sure, but channeled male personalities in female channelers frequently
    do this, and it requires an active physical effort to get the voice
    down -- it frequently produces hoarseness afterwards.
    
    					Topher

    "There is a principle, proof against all argument, a bar against
    all progress, and which if persisted in cannot but keep the mind
    in everlasting ignorance - and that is, contempt prior to examination"
    
    Paley
    
    "Accept nothing that is unreasonable; discard nothing as unreasonable
    without proper examination"
    
    Buddha
    
    "Now, are you talking about what it is you know
     or just repeating what it was you heard?"
    
    Grace Slick, "Play on Love"
    
    "You call it rain, but the human name
     doesn't mean sh** to a tree"
    
    Grace again
    

    ************************************************************************
    Well hello again John...I apologize for keeping you waiting
    so long, but it looks like others have had something to say too...I
    have been extremely busy, the only time I can really read DEJAVU
    is to print it out and take it home, and I finally finished reading
    all the replies to 455 last Tuesday morning.  Let me voice my agreement
    with the following: .03, .04, and .28.  
    
    I'm not going to say that I agree with everything I see in this
    conference, or that anyone speaks for me, so first of all please
    don't stereotype me with what you have in your mind as the type
    of person who is a "New Ager" - to my knowledge there is no such
    thing-just people who are finding out that other people are
    experiencing the same things they are, and that, not only is there
    crap and charlatans out there trying to provide explanations, and
    not only are there scientific people who don't have explanations
    for these phenomena and therefore deny their existence (??? what
    kind of logic is that?), but if they look hard enough they can find
    other people going through the same types of things they are, and
    maybe if they get together and share information and experiences,
    they just might learn and grow from doing so.  So you don't believe
    in any of this "hodge podge"? Fine. But don't tell me I'm
    hallucinating when I see things with my own eyes that you can't
    explain, or tell me that since you can't explain it with your
    superficial science, these things that I know in my heart are simply
    delusions.  Sorry, I don't buy it...I know what the deal is, and
    just because you can't explain it to yourself, doesn't mean I haven't
    been convinced (and I consider myself just as skeptical as you,
    just as observant, and just as hip to BS.)
    
    So.....let me respond to your original note.
    
    "I trust you will find me among the better informed skeptics as
    I have been observing it for some time now"...If you had been
    EXPERIENCING any of these things, John, you wouldn't be talking
    about them so contemptously, and you wouldn't be attacking the people
    who have had strange things happen to them, have found no explanations
    in established science (much less kindness, more like hostile
    contempt), and have gone on hopefully to a TRUE source of information
    for explanations.
    
    "...portions of it are bad or dangerous..." in whose opinion? Yours?
    Since when do you make blanket judgements as to what is bad for
    me and what is good for me? Sorry, I reserve that to myself, and
    so does everyone else...please explain.
    
    My original comment about people choosing their parents and time
    of death is not a crutch I lean on during times of tragedy because
    I am too weak-minded to deal with grief-in fact I was kind of sad
    when I realized someone might actually believe that is what I meant.
    That belief ties in with my belief in re-incarnation, in which the
    purpose of existence is to continually evolve to a more "God-like"
    state (this should be the topic for another note if you wish to
    debate this, suffice it to say before I would want you to critisize
    this statement I would want a chance to lay a whole "thesis" before
    you, and not have you critisize one broad statement that is rather
    our of context); part of this involves an agreement on a higher
    plane (again, if you wish to debate I demand the right of explanation,
    don't just critisize my use of the phrase "higher plane" without
    understanding COMPLETELY  what I mean) between  three "persons",
    that two of them will bring the third into the world; and the person
    being brought into the world will usually choose the parents that
    will be most conducive to him accomplishing whatever his work will
    be and learning whatever needs to be learned, in that given
    incarnation. As far as choosing one's time death, I believe that
    the time of one's leaving an incarnation is decided by the HIGHER
    SELF (another note topic of teachings before you presume that you understand
    this concept well enough to call it hogwash, please), and is dependent
    both on whether or not everything that needs to be accomplished
    has been, and on the condition of the body. (I don't believe in
    chance AT ALL, John, and we are at an impasse on this opinion, it
    is useless to debate it).  Remember when a Delta jet crashed in
    Dallas last year? It came to rest within a few dozen feet of a huge,
    densly populated apartment complex.  In any case, how dare you take
    it upon yourself to decide what is "bad or dangerous" for anyone
    but YOU? I didn't mean that in a hostile way, guy, just
    matter-of-factly.
    "I wonder if the persons who use those phrases have the faintest
    idea of what they mean." I assure you, I know precisely what I mean,
    more precisely than you understand most of your science, because
    my understanding comes from personal experience and personal
    observation, not reading about someone else's observations, and
    not reading a textbook.  There are things I have seen with my own
    eyes (read 448.11; if you think I was still dreaming when I saw
    this, you are not correct; if you think I imagined or hallucinated
    all this, I might add this to the story; after this occured I went
    downstairs to use the bathroom, and walking by my grandmother's
    bedroom which was right below mine (mine was on the 2nd floor),
    she said "Is anything going on up there, Doug, Suzie's (her dog that
    sleeps with her) been just a-looking up at the ceiling and whinin'
    and whimperin' and actin' all excited"; I told her what had happened,
    and she accepted it without a word, not because she's a "New Ager"
    (far from it, in her Church of Christ this stuff is probably viewed
    as something Satanic) but because her grandson was simply giving
    her an honest answer to her question) at any rate, back to my original
    tangent, there are things I have seen with my own eyes which would
    be viewed as preposterous by current "scientific theory"-because
    this "scientific theory" completely ignores spirituality; can a
    textbook explain what a man's soul is? Do you deny it's existence
    because you can't explain it? Rubbish!!! The fact that science cannot
    expain these things, indicates to me a flaw in the science, not
    a denial of the possibility of the event because it can't be explained.
     I say, John, that there is a higher form of science that the
    scientific community on this planet has not discovered yet, a set
    of laws and principles under which the entire universe operates,
    and which we as men and women live under, with our total and complete
    free will...anybody at any given time can do anything they want
    to, but since we live under certain of God's laws, our acts are
    going to have a certain effect on our lives..."what goes around
    comes around", "as a man sows, so also shall he reap"...
    
    "Next time someone starts talking about mystical vibrations and
    energy fields, ask him how all that was determined".  How was it
    determined? By the mind and will of God.  Just because science,
    at its present stage of development, cannot explain energy fields
    and the vibrational nature of the universe, does not mean they do
    not exist;some of the teachings of the Rosicrucians touch on very
    rational, proven explanations for these things. No, I cannot publish
    monographs in this conference, they do not belong to me.  Using
    your logic, John, ancient man would have denied the existence of
    the sun because he couldn't explain nuclear fusion (or is it fission).
     Would you have argued with him that the sun couldn't possible exist
    because he couldn't give you a scientific explanation as to how
    it worked?  This analogy may seem far-fetched to you, but to me
    it is an excellent analogy; the existence of God is to me, just
    as obvious a thing as the existence of the sun; NOT (underline a
    thousand times) because of blind faith, but because of personal
    experience, personal observation, and something I might call intuition,
    or insight maybe; something I Know in my mind and my heart; and
    no, God has not prove his existence to me in a scientific thesis;
    thank God I don't think in such a way that he would have to.  Can
    you scientifically explain what love is? If you could, wouldn't
    it be in rather bad taste to do so?
    
    RE: .12; "...when that personal "mythology" (my quotes) becomes
    ultimate truth massive problems arise."  
    Do you deny the existence of a central Truth? There can only be
    one central, universal Truth (this is getting very ambiguous, I
    think most of you know what I mean), by the very nature of the word
    truth, and if someone, through their lives, discovers all of this
    truth (as Christ did), or if someone even discovers a small portion
    of comprehension as to how the universe works, that person's discovery
    is not just his personal reality; it is indeed possible, folks,
    to understand how the universe works, and there is, indeed, one
    central Truth; but people who go around saying they have it and
    preaching it to other people, just by their doing that they are
    proving that they do not understand it; because along with your
    comprehension comes the realization that people have to come to
    their comprehension by themselves, in their own way, through their
    own lives and experiences; one doesn't go around trying to force
    them to believe in things they may not be ready for...in fact, it
    is in EXTREMELY bad taste to do so...
    
    I have more to say, but no time to say it in,and I have already
    written longer than I intended to.  Let me close by saying that
    I agree with 455.12's statement about man being responsible for
    his own actions, and having the ultimate responsiblity for their
    consequences; but I don't agree that the "New Age" (maybe I'll stop
    using this word after the connatations you have pinned on it) way
    of thinking is contradictory to that belief; in fact, that idea
    is one of the foundations of the workings of Karma.  Has anyone
    seen the movie "Oh, God" with George Burns and John Denver? There's
    a scene where John Denver has finally been convinced that God (whom
    George Burns portrayed) is who he says he is, and John asks "if
    you're God, how can you allow the things that go on here?
    How can you allow the world to be in such a state, and how can you
    cause so many horrible things to happen?  George Burns replied, "I don't,
    you do."
    
    Your fellow pilgrim
    Doug

RE: .53 

Nice to hear from you Doug....even if to excess.

I'll try to address what I can right now.  If you have any other questions,
please ask.



    > "I trust you will find me among the better informed skeptics as I
    have been observing it for some time now"...If you had been
    EXPERIENCING any of these things, John, you wouldn't be talking about
    them so contemptously, and you wouldn't be attacking the people who
    have had strange things happen to them....< 

I wasn't aware anyone was under attack.  Anyway, one of my great sayings
is "you don't have to go to Egypt to know that there are pyramids there."
You are greatly mistaken if you think someone must experience something
in order to judge it.  A judge at a murder trial bases his pronouncement
on the facts presented--he doesn't have to experience the murder.


    > "...portions of it are bad or dangerous..." in whose opinion? Yours?
    Since when do you make blanket judgments as to what is bad for me and
    what is good for me? Sorry, I reserve that to myself, and so does
    everyone else...please explain. < 


Breathing cyanide gas is bad for you.  Opening your space suit in a vacuum
is bad for you.  Jumping in front of a speeding train is bad for you.
Swallowing hot coals is bad for you.  Need I go on?  Like it or not, some
things are universally bad for you.  What's the problem?


    >  Remember when a Delta jet crashed in Dallas last year? It came to
    rest within a few dozen feet of a huge, densly populated apartment
    complex.  < 

So what?  Please be so kind as to tell me what point you are trying to make.


    >.. can a textbook explain what a man's soul is? Do you deny it's
    existence because you can't explain it? Rubbish!!!  < 

Fine.  And I say there are pink elephants in your office right now.  You cannot
deny their existence.  And I say there is a two-ton water lily on your head.
You cannot deny that it exists.  You can see what a meaningless game this
becomes.  If you claim something exists, don't get pissed-off when I ask you to
prove it.  The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. 

I have no problem with a person simply saying "I BELIEVE such-and-such,
but I have covered this topic already in the IT MUST BE A SETUP topic.


    >  The fact that science cannot expain these things, indicates to me a
    flaw in the science, not a denial of the possibility of the event
    because it can't be explained. < 


Fine, but that doesn't make any more sense than if I claim your perception is
flawed because with you cannot see the water lily on your head. 



    >  Just because science, at its present stage of development, cannot
    explain energy fields and the vibrational nature of the universe, does
    not mean they do not exist...< 


Here we go again.  How do you know that what you feel is energy?  What makes
you think the universe is "vibrational?"  How do you know that what you
are feeling is a vibration?


Your analogy about the sun was not a good one.  I would not expect a primitive
person to know how it works.  But he could tell me, "stick out your hand
and feel the heat" and I could.  He could say "Do you see a bright ball
in the sky?" and I could say I did.  We would agree that the sun is hot
and it gives light because both of us, or ANYONE, could prove those things.
But if he said "The sun is hot because its cosmic vibrations give off psychic
energies that resonate with the earth's harmonic field" then it is up to
him to DEFINE these things and PROVE them.  He has not offered an explanation
at all!  So it is with pseudoscientists.



    >  Can you scientifically explain what love is? If you could, wouldn't
    it be in rather bad taste to do so?  < 


Well, yes, I could.  And it would NOT be in bad taste to do so.  How is
it that knowing about something makes it in bad taste?

    
FWIW: Notes intrigues me because the same person can be viewed in different
ways in different conferences.  I get the feeling in this conference that
some people think I hold science as the be-all/end-all/do-all/ of all things
and that I am some kind of logical robot.  In SOAPBOX some people view me
as a granola-crunching, bleeding-heart flower child.  Not that I'm complaining.
Just please be informed that I sound more extreme in writing than in person.
We probably hold several of the same beliefs.

John M.
                                          

re .-1:

Live it up a bit Mitchy; breath a few times and put on your asbestsuit.

>I wasn't aware anyone was under attack.  Anyway, one of my great sayings
>is "you don't have to go to Egypt to know that there are pyramids there."

Maybe not, but the pictures and texture surely cannot reveil any of the 
emotion being there induces into you perception systems!

>You are greatly mistaken if you think someone must experience something
>in order to judge it.  A judge at a murder trial bases his pronouncement
>on the facts presented--he doesn't have to experience the murder.

Not all real events are reproducable, provable or will even fit into a 
logical sceme. I, for one, find it very likely that it would significantly 
improve the sentences if the judge could actually go to the time and scene
of the crime and look for himself, instead of getting informations second hand.
There's nothing wrong with second hand on the material level  (i.e. I have a
second hand car.. oh, well ;-), by spiritual/psychological evolution - one
better be there oneself or it's senseless. 

>Breathing cyanide gas is bad for you.  Opening your space suit in a vacuum
>is bad for you.  Jumping in front of a speeding train is bad for you.
>Swallowing hot coals is bad for you.  Need I go on?  Like it or not, some
>things are universally bad for you.  What's the problem?

Confusing subjectivity and objectivity, thats the problem.

>    >.. can a textbook explain what a man's soul is? Do you deny it's
>    existence because you can't explain it? Rubbish!!!  < 
>
>Fine.  And I say there are pink elephants in your office right now.  You cannot
>...
>prove it.  The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. 

So that's were it came from! Please, John, could you get this bulldozer out my
office !!! It's going on my nervers, that only I can feel it.

Make it easy: allways assume, that people are refering their experiences 
subjectivly and STOP critisizing them for it; then when peoples subjective
experiences start clustering around various objects, we can with some sincirity
try to put together bits and pieces... science, as I see it, has also the 
obligation to expand "the known" into "the unknown". "Prove" can be a very 
abstract thing (i.e. it's validity may require a lot of "implicit" facts;
proving a mathemacal deduction is not a universal model for truth). 

>I have no problem with a person simply saying "I BELIEVE such-and-such,
>but I have covered this topic already in the IT MUST BE A SETUP topic.

Hm.

>    >  The fact that science cannot expain these things, indicates to me a
>    flaw in the science, not a denial of the possibility of the event
>    because it can't be explained. < 
>
>
>Fine, but that doesn't make any more sense than if I claim your perception is
>flawed because with you cannot see the water lily on your head. 

Listen to your dog.. you don't understand it? well learn the language!
This is getting a biot childish (in the negative sence, right?) Or am 
I goin to far? No pun intended <-{

    >  Just because science, at its present stage of development, cannot
    explain energy fields and the vibrational nature of the universe, does
    not mean they do not exist...< 

>Your analogy about the sun was not a good one.  I would not expect a primitive
>person to know how it works.  But he could tell me, "stick out your hand
>and feel the heat" and I could.  He could say "Do you see a bright ball
>in the sky?" and I could say I did.  We would agree that the sun is hot
>and it gives light because both of us, or ANYONE, could prove those things.
>But if he said "The sun is hot because its cosmic vibrations give off psychic
>energies that resonate with the earth's harmonic field" then it is up to
>him to DEFINE these things and PROVE them.  He has not offered an explanation
>at all!  So it is with pseudoscientists.

Okay, lab exercise...

Equipment: Darkroom, handpowered AC-generator (AC), lightbulp (LP), 
Volt meter (VM)

Connect it:

 +------+---------+
 |      |         |
AC     LP        VM
 |      |         |
 +------+---------+
 
E.1.:	Turn generator slowly, observer needle on VM; then turn twice as
	fast, compare with needle movement before.

E.2.:	Turn generator so fast as you can... not only see the light, but
	also feel the heat it radiates. Look at the needle. ;-)

The conclusion: From this experiment I would happily assume the sun to be 
some sort of lightbulp. But, then who's turning the generator.

BTW. Im looking forward to a scientific explanation of "LOVE", that can 
proved/reproduced at will. (Remember policies when you answer ;-)
    
Yes, I am sure, you are a nice person essentially, no devil would carry on
like you do; but can you prove it, or do I have to experience it in person 
to know. ;-)

-
Nis

    Why justify why we are the way we are?  Lets get back to the
    interesting stuff.

    re: -.1
      
         I agree!  ...but, what's the interesting stuff?
      
    (reminds me of Al Capp, I think it was, who said "Yes, it's true,
    blonds have more fun"...[and then added in a wispy voice]...
    "but more fun than what?")
    
   Frederick
    

    >> ...but, what's the interesting stuff?
    
    The para-normal, the metaphysical, the occult, the mystical, the
    unknown, the intuitive karmic patterns, the brush with forces beyond
    what we consider reality, the search for enlightenment_:-)

    John, I sense a bit of animosity on your part, and it is clear that
    we have reached an total and complete impasse on this subject; at
    least, you and I have...Let's cool out, remember that we both have
    to share the same planet, and try to make each other's lives easier
    and more pleasant rather than something else.  I suspect you and
    I have enough sarcasm and animosity coming at us in our day to day
    lives; I'd much rather talk to you than argue with you.  If you
    read animosity into any of my replies, be aware that it was not
    intended; you struck a nerve in me (perhaps I did in you in my last
    reply), and I get rather passionate when that happens...remembering
    that I am 22 and a bit more undisciplined with my emotions than
    I hope to be 10 years from now.
    
    I really don't think you and I can go anywhere but in circles from
    this point; you might be interested to know that 8 or 9 years ago
    I would have been applauding and agreeing with every word you said.
    In fact, I daresay I would have said it the same way you did...I
    suspect you and I may be a lot alike; and I wouldn't be surprised
    at all if we shared many, many opinions; let's follow .57's advice,
    and see (to ourselves) what else we might learn [ or see through
    : )   ] in the upcoming notes and replies.
    
    I think the conference knows where we both stand; unless you think
    we would get any farther along by me responding to 455.54, I am
    going to stand on my last reply in this conference (I think the
    note 455 and the reply 455.53 could stand by themselves, and would
    start an interesting discussion if they were shown side by side
    to someone); I will say that the nature of what we're discussing
    is such that putting space limits on its discussion is not relevent,
    and is counterproductive to a full, indepth understanding of
    spirituality and God; perhaps the unsuspecting woman (I haven't
    met her yet...) that I marry will help me to become more concise;
    either that or we're going to spend a great deal of our lives
    talking...)
    
    If you are ever in the Detroit area, I would very much like to meet
    and have lunch or dinner with you...my number is in the book, under
    my last name in the city of Ypsilanti, and I am also in the DEC
    phone book.  I'll show you around...
    
    I'm not addressing this lyric quote to you, but to all of us.
    
    When you open your mouth, what comes out?
    What's the first word? What's the first line?
    When you open your mouth and love comes out
    Then you know you just sang a clear line
    
    I've heard people say it a thousand times in a thousand different
    ways
    I've heard people say it a thousand times, and they know there's
    only one way to play
    You've got to "play on love!!!!!"
    
    
    Doug

Thought you all might be interested in reading this.

=========================================================================

               <<< IOSG::LIB0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                    -< The New Christian Notes Conference >-
=========================================================================

    This topic is a continuation of the "New Age Movement and Related
    Topics" from the former Christian v2 conference.

    Like I promised, the following 5 entries are a synopsis of the New Age
    Movement in outline form.  This is copied without permission from the
    Constance Cumbey book _The Hidden Dangers Of The Rainbow_, appendix G,
    published in 1983.

    An interesting nit - the outline, when typed in, came to 666 lines.

    PLEASE do not ignore this 5 part outline. Extract the replys if you
    have to, but don't ignore them.

===========================================================================

I. The New Age Movement - What is it?

 A. It is a worldwide coalition of networking organizations.  It also
    includes individuals bound together by common mystical experiences. 
    There are more than 10,000 "New Age" organizations (excluding
    branches) within the United States and Canada alone!  Alphabetically,
    they range from Amnesty International through Zero Population Growth. 
    (See _Networking: the First Report and Directory_ by Jessica Lipnack
    and Jeffrey Stamps, Doubleday, 1982. See also _New Age Politics_ by
    Mark Stain, Dell Books Division of E.P. Dutton, 1979.)  New Age
    organizations include (but are not limited to) the following types:

    1. Religious cults, including the following prototypes:

     a.	The Church Universal and Triumphant and its spawned organizations, 
	Summit Lighthouse and Summit University headed by Elizabeth Claire 
	Prophet (syncretistic mixture of exoteric "christianity", Buddhism, 
	Hinduism, Spiritualism, etc.).

     b.	Children of God (labels itself as a New Age ashram) which is 
	designed to appeal to young people who might otherwise be attracted 
	to charismatic Christianity.

     c.	Unity School of Christianity (headquartered in Unity Village, 
 	Missouri).

     d.	3HO (Buddhist/Hindu seekers)

     e.	Ashram of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (syncretistic mixture of 
        Hinduism,, Buddhism, Tantric Sex (aka "free love"), holistic 
        health, mind control techniques, etc.).

    2.	Mind control classes and organizations such as Silva, EST (Erhard 
	Seminars Training), New Age Thinking, TM (Transcendental Meditation), 
	Lifespring, Arica, etc. 

    3.	Holistic health practitioners, many homeopathic physicians and many 
	(but not all) nutritionists and health food stores and centers.

    4.	Many "appropriate technology, environmental, and ecological 
	organizations (not all) such as Clamshell Alliance, Sierra Club, etc.

    5.	Political interest organizations such as the California New Age 
	Caucus, New Organization for an American Revolution (N.O.A.R.), 
	New World Alliance, World Federalists, SANE, Society of Emissaries 
	(combines esotericism with political action), Friends of the Earth, 
	Planetary Citizens, Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose, etc.

    6.	International communities, such as Findhorn Foundation (probably the 
	Vatican City of the New Age Movement), Stelle Community (Illinois), 
	the Farm (Tennessee), etc.

    7.	Esoteric philosophy and religious groups such as Lucis Trust 
	(probably the "brains" of the New Age Movement), Theosophical 
	Society, Rosicrucians, etc.

    8.	Some organizations purporting to fight world hunger such as the 
	Hunger Project.

    9.	Although not officially a part, the New Age Movement's adherents have 
	infiltrated orthodox medical, religious, governmental, business, and 
	other organizations.

 B. It is known by other names, including, but not limited to the
    following:

	    1.	The Aquarian Conspiracy
	    2.	The Age of Aquarius
	    3.	Humanistic Psychology
	    4.	Networking Movement
	    5.	New Thought Religion
	    6.	The New Church
	    7.	The Third Wave
	    8.	The Third Force
	    9.	New Consciousness
	    10.	Transcendental Movement
	    11.	Human Potential Movement
	    12.	The New Spirituality
	    13.	Secular Humanism
	    14.	Humanism

 C. The principle aims of the New Age Movement include:
	
	    1.	A New World Order
	    2.	A New World Religion
	    3.	A New Age Christ (who is neither Jesus nor "Christ")

 D. Much New Age doctrine is found in the following sources:

    1.	Writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1836-91),
 	including:

	     a.	_Isis Unveiled_
	     b.	_The Secret Doctrine_

    2.	Books by Alice Bailey (1880-1949), including:

	     a.	_The Externalisation of the Hierarchy_
	     b.	_The Rays and the Initiations_
	     c.	_Initiation: Human and Solar_
	     d.	_The Reappearance of the Christ_
	     e.	_The Destiny of the Nations_
	     f.	_The Unfinished Autobiography_
	     g.	_Discipleship in the New Age_ (2 volumes)
	     h.	_Esoteric Psychology_ (2 volumes)

    3.	Writings of Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947), including:

	     a.	_Maitreya_ (Roerich Museum Press, 1932)
	     b.	_Shambala, the Resplendent_
	     c.	_The Angi Yoga_ series

    4.	Letters of Helena Roerich (Nicholas' wife)

    5.	Writings of George Gurdjieff (1872-1949)

    6.	Writings of H.G. Wells (1866-1946), including:

	     a.	_An Open Conspiracy: Blueprints for a World Revolution_
	     b.	_An Outline of History_ (2 volumes)

    7.	Writings of David Spangler (1945- ), including:

	     a.	_Revelation: the Birth of a New Age_ (treated as a bible  
		within the New Age Movement) 
	     b.	_Reflections on the Christ_ (calls for Luciferic
		initiations on pages 44-45)
	     c.	_Links With Space_
	     d.	_Relationship and Identity_
	     e.	_The Laws of Manifestation_
	     f.	_New Age Rhythms_
	     g.	_Conversations With John_
	     h.	_Towards a Planetary Vision_

    8.	Writings of Marilyn Ferguson, including her best selling, 
	Book of the Month Club selection, _The Aquarian Conspiracy_.


II. Roots of the New Age Movement are found in some of the world's earliest 
    recorded traditions:

 A. Many New Age esoteric historians claim their traditions originated in
    Atlantis.

    1.	It is probable that Atlantis existed, but as the world 
	prior to the Noachian flood - a world that God judged and 
	condemned.

    2.	New Age literature supportive of the Atlantis tradition 
	includes (but is not limited to) the following:

	     a.	_Isis Unveiled_ by H.P. Blavatsky
	     b.	The Golden Thread by Natalie Banks

 B. New Agers then claim that at the time of the cataclysmic destruction
    of Atlantis that their "White Lodge" of "Ascended Masters" then
    withdrew from the earth and left the earth temporarily in the control
    of the "Black Lodge". 

    A clear reading of New Age literature reveals that they define "Black
    Lodge" as the source of Judeo-Christian tradition and "White Lodge"
    as the source of their occult teachings.

 C. The claim is then made that the teachings were preserved in the
    ancient land of Babylon and surrounding Plains of Shinar and from
    there disseminated throughout the earth, including Taoist doctrines of
    China, Mayan-Aztec teachings of Mexico and Central/South America,
    Great Spirit teachings of the American Indians, Hindu/Buddhist
    teachings of Asia, etc. 

    1.	This clearly correlates with the biblical teachings of the building 
	of the Tower of Babel and God's work in scattering these builders 
	throughout the globe after confusing their language.

    2.	Other evidence of the probability of the truth of the biblical 
	teaching include the following:

	     a.	The extreme similarity of the alphabet of the Aztecs to 
		the Egyptian hieroglyphs
	     b.	The similarity of South American pyramids to Egyptian 
		pyramids and Babylonian ziggurats
	     c.	Common legends about such things as a worldwide flood, 
		the building of a great tower, the scattering of mankind, 
		and the confusion of languages:

	1) It is improbable that this much could be explained away as 
	   mere "coincidence"
	2) New Age literature corroborates it - much as a negative displays 
	   a photograph
	3) The doctrinal similarities between pagan religions of the world 
	   and the sharp doctrinal disagreement with the Judeo-Christian 
	   traditions.  The only religion that may truly be call a "hybrid" 
	   is that of the Muslims.

 D. The biblical story of the Garden of Eden is fully borne out 
    in the negative in the pagan religions of the world.

    1.	The lies of the serpent in the Garden of Eden are preserved as 
	doctrinal points in the pagan religions of the world:

	     a.	"You shall not surely die"
	     b.	"You shall be as gods"

    2.	These points are also the central theological theme of the New Age 
	Movement, of the "New Theology" and of the so-called "Cosmic Gospels" 
	of "UFO" visitors

    3.	These points are also the doctrine of nearly every religious cult 
	in the world today.

    4.	Further evidence for this may be found in the prevalence 
	of snake worship throughout nearly every pagan religion of
	the world - ranging from Eskimos to Chinese and from 
	Aztecs to Hinduism.

 E. The New Age Movement includes full-fledged worship of Lucifer.

   This corroborates the biblical teaching that Lucifer was expelled from
   heaven for the sin of pride - for wanting to be worshipped as God -
   exalting himself above God. 


III. Make no mistake about it, the New Age Movement *is* a religion which
     closely parallels all the pagan traditions of the world.  It is a
     counterfeit - albeit a poor one - of Christian doctrine: 

 A. The New Age Movement has its own bibles: _Oahspe_; _The Aquarian
    Gospel of Jesus the Christ_; _My Truth, the Lord Himself_; _My Peace,
    the Lord Himself_; _The Book of Urantia_; _The Secret Doctrine_; _The
    Keys of Enoch: the Book of Knowledge_; _Revelation: the Birth of a New
    Age_; etc. 

 B. The New Age Movement has a comprehensive body of doctrine which
    includes the following tenets:

    1.	Belief in a central spiritual being known as "The Source" 
	or "The God of Force", which is to them "God Transcendent".
	(Sometimes they also say that our God is something or 
	someone known as "Sanat Kumara" - probably a scrambling 
	of the name "Satan"!).

    2.	Belief in a "God Immanent" which means "god within".

    3.	Belief in the divinity of man as a necessary part of 
	belief in "God Immanent" (see II.D.1., "supra").

    4.	Belief in "The Law of Rebirth", which is also known as 
	reincarnation.

    5.	Belief that God is inferior to something known as "The 
	Solar Logos".

    6.	Belief that Jesus and the Christ are two separate 
	entities and that the Christ is an office rather than a 
	man.  (Note scripture 1 John 2:22 which states that the 
	antichrist will deny that Jesus is *the* Christ and 1 
	John 4:13 which states that he will deny that Jesus 
	Christ is come in the flesh.)

    7.	Belief in evolution.

    8.	Belief in the perfectibility of man as a corollary belief 
	to that of evolution.

    9.	Belief in the Law of Avatars - a teaching that at the 
	start of every New Age the Solar Logos or Sanat Kumara 
	sends "The Christ" who overshadows a human being, 
	imparting to the world "new revelation" to help them 
	through the coming "New Age".  (Christians and Jews 
	should easily recognize this process as good old-fashioned
	demonic possession.)

    10.	Belief in salvation by initiation and works rather than 
	by atonement and grace.

    11.	Belief in the interconnectedness of all things - the 
	Doctrine of Wholeness (sometimes called holistic thinking 
	or in Eastern mystical terms "Atman").  This is also 
	known as the Doctrine of At-One-Ment, a deliberate occult 
	perversion of the Judeo-Christian word "atonement".

    12.	Deep and abiding hatred for Judaism, orthodox Catholicism, and 
	fundamentalist Christianity in particular and all Christians 
	in general.

    13.	Hatred for God the Father which expresses itself to hatred for 
	Moslems who refuse to renounce their faith in him.  (NOTE: Moslems 
	worship ALLAH - some would argue that they worship the Father 
	(they don't) - brs).

    14.	Belief in existence of "masters" and of an occult hierarchy.

    15.	Belief in an "inner government" of the planet which is administered 
	by this so-called hierarchy of "masters" originating from a mythical 
	"Shamballa".

    16.	Belief in the perfectibility of Aryan man in a path evolutionary 
	progress towards becoming "masters".

 C. The New Age Movement is identical in basic cosmology and beliefs 
    to both Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan which taught all of the above.


IV. The New Age Movement poses a real and present danger to both 
    Jews and Christians.

 A. The New Age Movement has announced through many of its 
    leaders plans to try to launch a New World Order in the near 
    future.

    1.	A major such effort, the Planetary Initiative for the 
	World We Choose, is headed by Donald Keys who openly 
	dedicated his book to Max Heindel (Rosicrucianism -
	identical to KKK and Nazi racial theories) and Djwal Khul 
	(another name for the Alice Bailey teachings).

    2.	The same effort also features David Spangler (the man who 
	said we must take a Luciferic initiation to enter the New 
	Age) on the board of its secretariat organization - 
	Planetary Citizens of New York City.

    3.	The same effort also features - believe it or not - a 
	"World Council of Wise Persons" headed by Norman Cousins! 
	Buckminster Fuller and Dr. Carlos Romulus of the 
	Philippines are also to serve on this "distinguished" 
	panel.

    4.	According to Alice Bailey writings, which the Planetary 
	Initiative folks are openly following, present religious 
	practices of orthodox Christians, Jews and Moslems are to
	be outlawed and will be replaced by those of the "New 
	World Religion".

    5.	Another facet of their scheme to take over the world 
	which they call "The Plan" is to bring forth a New Age 
	"Messiah" - a so-called "Maitreya the Christ".

    6.	They further make the claim in the Alice Bailey writings 
	Benjamin Creme endorses that other "masters" posing as 
	religious "messiahs" will appear to adherents of all the 
	major world religions to persuade them of the "truths" of
	the New World Religion and its "new revelations".

     a.	It is claimed that the "Imam Mahdi" will appear to the 
	Moslems to inform them they are to accept "Maitreya the 
	Christ".

     b.	It is further claimed that the "Buddha" will appear to   
	world Buddhists to convince them their better fate lies
	with "Maitreya the Christ". 

     c.	It is further claimed that "angels" (probably demons) 
	will appear with this so-called "Christ" to convince
	people that he should be followed by all men.

     d.	It is even claimed that the "Master Jesus" will appear to 
	Christians so as to settle the controversy as to whether 
	Jesus and the Christ are one and the same and to attempt 
	to persuade Christians that they are not.  (Note 1 John 
	2:22.  This is a distinct test of antichrist!)

    7.	Spokesmen for the New Age Movement (Alice Bailey, David 
	Spangler, Nicholas Roerich, etc.) have threatened a world 
	war in the field of world religions and even 
	extermination of Christians, Jews, Moslems, and others 
	who refuse to accept Maitreya as "The Christ".

 B. The New Age Movement through its seminal writings (Alice Bailey, 
    Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, etc.) maintains the traditional 
    occult doctrines if Aryanism and a blood taint resting on 
    individuals of Jewish extraction.

    The Movement is profoundly antisemetic all the way to its 
    esoteric core, although many of its lesser initiates are 
    blissfully unaware of this sordid fact.

 C. These seminal teachings and writings of certain New Age 
    leaders (Foster Bailey of Lucis Trust and Gregory Bateson) 
    call for separation between church and state immediately.

 D. The Alice Bailey writings openly followed by the leadership 
    of the Planetary Initiative even call for using the atomic 
    bomb for such "creative" purposes as using it on the Church 
    of Rome and other religious groups who "don't know how to leave 
    politics alone".  (See pages 191, 548 of _The Externalisation 
    of the Hierarchy_ by Alice A. Bailey!)

 E. The New Age Movement's leadership is proposing to implement 
    all the systems set forth in Revelation, chapter 13:

    1.	They have called for the abolishment of a cash monetary system.

    2.	They propose instead to institute "a more rational means of 
	exchange" such as an economy based on a computerized barter system.

    3.	They openly propose to give every world resident a number and 
	require the usage of this number in all financial transactions of 
	any sort.

	The real motive for this is probably not the efficient 
	feeding of folks as they claim will be done by their 
	proposed "World Food Authority", etc.  Instead it 
	probably is that stated by R. Buckminster Fuller, a New 
	Age leader who states that for an organization to control 
	the world it must first control the world's supply 
	routes.  (See _The Critical Path_, St. Martin's Press, 
	1981, p. xx.)

    4.	In the interests of giving the peasants a "new mythology" 
	to shape their necessary new world view, they plan to 
	make their New World Religion compulsory for all.

    5.	They plan to institute a "New World Order" which will be 
	a synthesis between the U.S.S.R. ("feet like a bear"), 
	Great Britain ("spoke like a lion") and the United States 
	("like unto a leopard"), also featuring the ten nation 
	Common Market nations of Europe (ten horns), and a 
	worldwide government or "planetary guidance system".

    6.	The system they propose to implement is *identical* in 
	belief systems and cosmology to the Nazi system of 
	Adolfus Hitler (the beast that was dead and came back
	to life - Nazism?)!


V. The New Age Movement has characteristics of a well-thought out 
   military operation patterned after Hitler's organization of his 
   "Third Reich":

 A. They openly call their scheme to take the world for the 
    antichrist "The Plan".

    1.	Probably the main vehicle for implementation of "The 
	Plan" at present is the Planetary Initiative for the 
	World We Choose which is sponsored by hundreds of 
	cooperating New Age, older, more well-established 
	organizations, and even banks and distinguished business 
	and university professors and presidents.

    2.	Planetary Citizens of New York City serves as the 
	secretariat for the Planetary Initiative.  David Spangler 
	(the man who said we must take the Luciferic initiation 
	to enter the New Age) serves also on the Board of 
	Directors of Planetary Citizens and his Lorian 
	Association is on of the sponsoring organizations of the 
	Planetary Initiative.

    3.	The Planetary Initiative went public on February 8, 
	[1983] after an obviously well-financed and prominently 
	supported kick-off press conference and cocktail party
	at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, 
	Episcopal, New York City.

 B. Those inside the Movement communicate between themselves with 
    code words and signals.  Some of the code or buzz-words include:

	    1.	Holistic
	    2.	Transformation
	    3.	Spaceship Earth
	    4.	Global village
	    5.	Interdependent or interdependence
	    6.	Manifestation or manifest
	    7.	Initiation or initiate
	    8.	Crowded planet
	    9.	Transcendent
	    10.	Consciousness-raising
	    11.	Paradigm or "new paradigm"
	    12.	Vision or "new vision"
	    13.	Global thread
	    14.	New Consciousness
	    15.	Planetary vision
	    16.	Global vision
	    17.	Transpersonal

 C. The Movement claims, according to New Age writer Mark Satin, to 
    have something for everybody (see _New Age Politics).

 D. According to the Alice Bailey writings and Marilyn Ferguson, 
    author of _The Aquarian Conspiracy_, the Movement has infiltrated 
    every aspect of modern society.  According to these writers, it 
    has also infiltrated every organization and institution.

 E. Similarly to Hitler's Brownshirts, many youth are organized into
    the paramilitary Guardian Angels.  The Guardian Angels were the
    cover story on November 1981 New Age Magazine - an organization
    (the magazine) being described by the Findhorn Foundation
    (Findhorn serves as a type of Vatican City/Washington, D.C. for
    the New Age Movement) as a "light center" whose role is to help
    spread the New Age Movement.  David Spangler serves as
    contributing editor of the New Age Magazine. 

 F. Hitler had a prisoner reach-out effort.  So do the New Agers.  
    Prisoners are reached by such programs as the New Age 
    adopt-a-prisoner program, encounter programs, New Age thinking 
    programs, Prison Ashrams, Project Start (for ex-prisoners), Silva 
    Mind Control, EST, TM, etc.

    In _Signs of Christ_ by Harold Balyoz (Altai Publishers, Agoura, 
    CA 91301: 1979) it was written of the New Age society to come 
    that:

	"It is astounding how the world is going to ruin!  The
	destroyers and the destroyed will be swept away.  The new
	one approach.  From pure clean places will appear new ones:
	nomads and ploughmen, orphans and vagabonds, monks and
	convicts, scientists and singers - in short, all those
	strong in spirit.  A legion of its own kind with
	understanding of spirit ... Accept everyone who comes to you
	and says a word about the spirit.  Even in the hardened eyes
	of a brigand at times a thought of achievement gleams.  And
	even a convict understands self-sacrifice when on watch. 

	"I want to see your cohorts real abodes for strong spirits,
	Remember that Christ prayed among thieves and that Buddha
	revealed the sacraments to a brigand ..." 

 G. The Nazis featured a pagan style battalion known as the SS.
    Similarly, there is a United States Military/private hybrid
    equivalent to this: The First Earth Battalion headed by Lt.
    Colonel Jim Channon.  This outfit which claims to be computer
    linked military wide and worldwide, with influence even extending
    behind the Iron Curtain openly bills itself as "New Age" and
    states it is working to build an "army of light".  Its
    Evolutionary Tactics manual is complete with flow and time
    charts.  Members are initiated rather than sworn into the
    battalion. 

 H. There is a carefully planned propaganda effort which sets the
    tone and rationales for future persecution and violence 
    towards Christians, Jews, and others who refuse to go forward 
    with their New Age "Christ".

    1.	Dick Sutphen's war on Fundamentalism;
    2.	Norman Lear's People for the American Way;
    3.	"Humanist Magazine"'s ridicule of fundamentalism, etc.

 I. The New Age Movement has placed a high premium on survivalism
    and self-reliance.  Many New Agers practice "voluntary 
    simplicity".

    1.	The rationale for this is to increase susceptibility to 
	hypnosis and "The Spirit".  (See Alice Bailey books for 
	details).

    2.	In Donald Keys' book _Earth at Omega_, he boasted that 
	this would keep the public from becoming wise to strength 
	of the New Age Movement:

	"We mentioned earlier how the dominant 'straight' society 
	has apparently not recognized the strength and 
	pervasiveness of the new consciousness culture.  Perhaps 
	this is just as well, as so far a polarization between 
	the old culture and the new one has been avoided.  If the 
	New Age Movement does become a target of alarmed forces 
	and defenders of the status quo ante, however, it will 
	offer a widely dispersed and decentralized target, very 
	hard to identify and dissuade or subvert from its 
	life-serving values.  Indeed, the expression of these 
	values emphasizes the food old pioneering American 
	virtues of self-reliance, thrift, self-discipline and 
	good neighborliness, qualities tending to nullify in 
	advance charges of deviation from desirable norms."

 J. The New Age Movement went public in 1975 with an exquisitely 
    planned and executed propaganda campaign.  This campaign had 
    been mapped out well in advance within the Alice Bailey, Angi 
    Yoga, and H.G. Wells writings.  The propaganda campaign 
    psychologically conditions the world to accept the New Age 
    Movement and the New Age "Christ" as well as his accompanying 
    "hierarchy", including the following:

    1.	Emphasize evolution together with a corollary belief man 
	is ultimately perfectible.

    2.	Teach the interconnectedness of all souls and all life 
	and matter.

    3.	Teach that the "kingdom of God" is merely the appearance 
	of "soul-controlled" men on earth in everyday life.

    4.	Teach that some men on earth have already reached the 
	goal of soul-control or perfection.

    5.	Teach that although all men and races, etc., are equal, that 
	they are at "varying stages of evolutionary development".  
	(We are all equal, but some are more equal than others!)

    6.	Teach that there has always been a plan (The Plan) and 
	that this plan has always been present and at varying 
	stages of evolution throughout history.

    7.	Color therapy, holistic health, mind control, and iridology.

 K. The New Age Movement has several important symbols for 
    identification and mystical (hypnotic) use.  They are not all 
    used simultaneously, but are all in current use within the 
    Movement:

    1.	The Rainbow (also called the Antahkarana or Rainbow 
	Bridge).  This is used as a hypnotic device.  They also 
	call it an "International Sign of Peace".  They claim 
    	they are building a rainbow bridge between the personality
	(you) and the over-soul or Great Universal Mind 
	(literally Sanat Kumara, i.e., Lucifer!).  See Isaiah 
	24:5 which states that one reason the Lord is destroying 
	the earth in the latter days is for breaking the 
	everlasting covenant.  The rainbow is the sign of the 
	everlasting covenant according to Genesis, chapter nine!

    2.	The Triangle [pyramid also, which is a variation on the 
	triangle - brs].

    3.	The Centering Symbol: a series of progressively smaller 
	circles within a larger circle leading to a dark and 
	distant (or light and distant) center.

    4.	Rays of light: to represent the seven rays they believe 
	exist in nature and in the rainbow.

    5.	A cross with diagonals placed against it.

    6.	The Circle.

    7.	The circle with a point in the center (see also centering 
	symbol, "Supra").

    8.	The circle divided into two.

    9.	The circle divided into four.

    10.	The Swastika.  See pages 161, 172 of Alice Bailey's _A 
	Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ and also _Esoteric Astrology_.
	This is also widely used within the Theosophical Society.

    11.	666.  That's correct!  Even the logo on _The Aquarian 
	Conspiracy_ by Marilyn Ferguson distinctly resembles a 
	666.  Page 79 of _The Rays and the Initiations_ by Alice 
	discusses some of the meaning and "sacred qualities" of 
	the 666.  _A Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ states on page 306 
	that 666 is the number of one of the three "heavenly" 
	men.  _The Keys of Enoch: the Book of Knowledge_, another 
	important New Age "bible" tells initiates to use the 
	numerical sequence as frequently as possible to hasten 
	the coming of the so-called "New Age".  This instruction 
	is found on page 391 of that book.

    12.	Pegasus (the winged horse) and the Unicorn.

END OF QUOTE

Whew!  Quite eye opening.  Thanks for posting this, Cindy.

		Dave

re: .61

Very interesting.  But that states an opinion as to what "New
Age" is supposedly about without really saying what is wrong
with that...

    re: .63>.61
        I think she's right, Paul.  If this is the NEW AGE and if this
    is New Age thinking, then, for me, at least, this IS "wrong."
        I have never heard of some of these ideas before, but from my
    perspective it is indicative of some incredible distortions and
    overwhelming paranoia and lots of lies and many half-truths 
    (by the way, Bucky Fuller is dead.)  I never speak of myself as
    being a member of the New Age, so perhaps there is a cop-out for
    me, but I suspect that not too many people I know would align 
    themselves with that crap (whether they sympathize with the New
    Age or not.)  No wonder Christians fight "extraneous" thinking
    so hard!
      
    (Lots of typing for someone, phew!)
      
    Frederick
    

The infamous note 25 in CHRISTIAN. Funny, it was moderated to a screeching
halt. Right Mikie?

It was a lot of typing, and the base note author went on to type several
more replies reinforcing these perceived dangers. 

Jay

p.s. Cindy, I thought you quit that conference about a month ago?

    
    
    Cindy,
    
    I'm glad you entered the note and I'm sorry you entered the note,
    all at the same time.  I knew things were bad, but not _that_ bad.
    It's sad to see what fear and closed minds will bring us to.  
    Underneath all that, is there any love?  What happened to love?
    
    Carole
    

    I posted replies to the original of this note in the (now archived
    version of) Christian notesfile.  I later deleted my responses.
    
    I did this for two reasons... one was that I really don't want to
    disrupt these people's beliefs or their notesfile, the other was
    that any attempt to force my way of thinking onto other people...
    especially those who cling to their old ways like a life raft...
    is the antithesis of New Age thinking.  The half-truths, the
    distortion, the lies, the hysteria, the fanaticism boggles the mind.
    And yet, ... is there any room in the future of humanity (except
    as George Orwell perceives it) for this level of judgement?  Is
    this type/level/thought_pattern restricted to those who lack the
    intelligence to think for themselves? ... or to form their own 
    judgements? ... or to assume responsibility for their own lives?
    
    Hate and fear have been used as tools by organized institutions
    to control humanity for far too long.  Whatever philosophical mode
    of thinking this note represents is far more harmfull and distructive
    to humanity than any flaky theory New Agers ever invented.
    Often when society or humanity evolved... those left behind clinging
    to the old ways fought the change with persecution.  

    So, if there is anything we do know... its that we choose our own
    path, make our own mistakes, and deal with our own karma.  I wish
    these people well, I sympathize with them, I pity them, .... 
    Perhaps their fear is justified... perhaps there is no place in
    the future of our universe for such as this.  So be it.

    
    Well, I went *back* to the conference after someone decided that
    he was *so* happy to see me (and a few others leave) that I just
    couldn't that go by (especially since he called me 'cold as a stone' 
    in my original topic, then secretly went back and deleted the notes. 
    I (politely, of course) asked him in my reentry note going back
    to the conference why he did that and got an oh-so-apologetic note 
    back......yawn.....
    
    Then I got fed up with the paranoia, closemindedness, arrogant
    attitudes, and so on, so I left again (after, like Mary, deleting
    most of my replies as well) - and am gone probably for good.  I'm
    still reading it on and off though.  Always good to hear *all* points
    of view before making up one's mind on things.
    
    Glad to be back here though.  It was a tad claustrophobic there.
    
    Cindy
          

Well, welcome back. Your energy is appreciated here!
Jay

    re .64:
    
    >    I have never heard of some of these ideas before, but from my
    >perspective it is indicative of some incredible distortions and
    >overwhelming paranoia and lots of lies and many half-truths 
    >(by the way, Bucky Fuller is dead.)  
    
    Much hate comes from distorted presentations of a group member.
    It's the "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel" concept: you
    use a worst-case example as being typical of the whole.  [By the
    way, Bucky fuller being dead shouldn't stop _effective_ New Agers,
    now, should it? :-D]
    
    > .....................................I never speak of myself as
    >being a member of the New Age, so perhaps there is a cop-out for
    >me, but I suspect that not too many people I know would align 
    >themselves with that crap (whether they sympathize with the New
    >Age or not.)  
    
    "New Age" is something like "hi fi" these days, as I think I observed
    earlier in these notes.  Whatever else it is, it's more a series
    of attitude shifts than a monolithic "movement."
    
    >No wonder Christians fight "extraneous" thinking so hard!
                                                      
    Waitaminit!  I'm a Christian!  Don't fall into the same trap as the writer
    of that _long_ (and silly, if potentially dangerous) note Cindy
    kindly showed us: don't judge the religion by the behavior of some
    members.  Yes, there are zealots.  Indeed, there are _some_ in the
    CHRISTIAN conference who not only do not know but apparently never
    _want_ to know anything about the positive aspects of the paranormal.
    
    re .67:
    
    >I did this for two reasons... one was that I really don't want to
    >disrupt these people's beliefs or their notesfile, the other was
    >that any attempt to force my way of thinking onto other people...
    >especially those who cling to their old ways like a life raft...
     
    Well, perhaps it's not "good" to disrupt folks' beliefs or notefile,
    but I think that if someone were telling others that, say, I was
    a torturer of kittens, I'd feel entitled to at least interject,
    "No, sorry; I happen to love cats and wouldn't hurt any at any time."
    The base note here limked everybody from Amnesty International to
    Zero Population Growth into a worldwide conspiracy of truly massive
    proportions.  Should that go unchallenged?  One needn't be
    confrontational, but it cannot be called "disruptive" to say politely,
    "Excuse me, but I think your allegations are in error."
    
    >........................................The half-truths, the
    >distortion, the lies, the hysteria, the fanaticism boggles the mind.
    
    You're doubtless a little young to remember Adolph Hitler.  He and
    his did at least as good a job; their scapegoats were the Jews,
    particularly the European ones.  ==>This is _not_ to say that the
    participants of the CHRISTIAN notes conference are Nazis. <==  It
    is to point out that the human animal can easily be led astray by
    half-truths, lies, hysteria, and fanaticism (check the European
    witch hysteria for another example of this).  
    
    >........................................................ Is
    >this type/level/thought_pattern restricted to those who lack the
    >intelligence to think for themselves? ... or to form their own 
    >judgements? ... or to assume responsibility for their own lives?
     
    No.  It's "restricted" to those who get caught up in a mob psychology. 
    After a lynching in years gone by, the "respectable" folk who took
    part in it would be honestly remorseful, but during the time of
    the act (the heat of the passion, as it were), emotion won over
    reason.  The same is true of the writings quoted in .61.  And a
    careful perusal of that notefile will show that not every member
    has that level of hysteria or closemindedness.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

However, having been a member of the subset of Christianity which erects
monuments to Billy Graham, the people I knew then did espouse the thoughts
stated in .61.  I truly fear the thoughts and actions of that subset
of Christianity.  As a group they are a violent and vindictive people.
I never understood how Hitler's Germany came into being until I transgressed
the value system of that subset.  Now I understand.  A closed system
of thought like theirs is very dangerous to the insiders and, if they
come into power, to the outsiders as well.

alison

    re .71 
    >>No, its restricted to those who get caught up in mob psychology
    
    I disagree Steve.  I really believe it has something to do with
    intelligence level... or perhaps I should say judgement... or a
    combination of the two.  
    
    The latest issue of (either.. can't remember which one) Omni or
    Discover... had an article on the latest newly developed IQ tests... 
    this one designed for adults.  It *really* measured judgement and
    other areas of intelligence not covered on the traditional tests.  
    It went from level 1 to level 7.  The analogy used for level 1 
    (elementary school age judgement level) was "I believe this
    because the bible says it is correct and the bible can't be wrong".
    The article went on to say that level 7 had never been reached by
    anyone under the age of 25.  
    

    re .74:
    
    >It went from level 1 to level 7.  The analogy used for level 1 
    >(elementary school age judgement level) was "I believe this
    >because the bible says it is correct and the bible can't be wrong".
      
    Not defending the level of judgement of some fundamentalists (who
    would agree with the above), I think that that's a loaded deck,
    because the testers apparently have built into their grading a bias
    against fundamentalist religionists (why limit it to Christians?).
    There have been some interesting demonstrations of well, rather
    than "mob psychology," let's call it "group pressure."  In law-
    enforcement and law classes, an incident will be staged, and one
    or two shills among the students will _insist_ that something happened
    different than actually happened, and the pressure of what other
    people saw will convince genuine witnesses that they actually saw
    what the shills claim.
    
    Intelligence level may have no relationship to emotional level;
    and that's where a lot of trouble stems from.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  There's a rule of thumb that the effective I.Q. of a mob
    is the median I.Q. of the mob members divided by the number of people
    in the mob.

RE: .74,.75
    
    I remember reading quite a while ago about an "ethical judgement"
    scale.  It was *not* billed as an IQ test.  Rather, it was based
    on -- and apparently supported -- a theory about specific stages
    of ethical development.  Needless to say, it was rather controversial
    since there is an implied value scale.  I don't know whether or
    not this is the same thing, but something similar to "The bible
    is RIGHT" statement was used to illustrate one of the levels.  Note,
    that this was not the basis of putting someone at that level, but
    was meant to provide potential interpreters with a gut feeling of
    what that stage means.
    
    As I remember, however, the arguing from absolute authority was
    the second or third stage.
    
    					Topher

    I'll see if I can find the article tonight and post something about
    it.  I not really sure Topher, but if I remember correctly,  arguing
    from absolute authority reflected a lower level of judgement.  I'll
    find the article and check. 

    RE: A few points
    
    Mob psychology - Peck talks about this a great deal in "People Of
                     The Lie".  He talks about Nazism and the Mylai
                     massacre in detail.  Made for interesting reading
                     for this beginner psych. reader.
    
    On emotional vs. intellectual - Back under the World Peace topic,
                     Peck talks about the 4 stages of spiritual growth.
                     Stage 1 are 'People Of The Lie' - ruled by their
                     own value system.  Stage 2 - commonly known as
                     'fundamentalism' mentions that people at this stage
                     enter religion as a structure of discipline - or
                     rather to escape from thinking for themselves and
                     having cut and dry rules to live by.  Stage 3 -
                     the skeptics, begin to question these rigid bounds
                     in Stage 2.  Stage 4 - Finding the answers and
                     a whole lot more!
    
    By the way, the *real* reason I left CHRISTIAN:
    
    I put in the parody on Constance Cumbey about where she falls in
    the crevice and the earth burps (extracted somewhere from this
    conference as I recall.....the moderator set it and all the other 
    humorous replies to hidden and wrote that it was a 'slam
    against Christians......(:^).   When I put in the 'Enlightenment
    Quiz', someone actually wrote that while he found it amusing, it
    reaffirmed his belief of 'just how dangerous THEM people are'...
    
    Cindy

	It's unfortunate that the fundamentalists have lost or given
	up their ability to question their belief system.  Having a
	religious structure and discipline is, I believe, really good
	for the soul (no pun intended).  Even though I have left a lot
	of the Catholic Church behind me, the discipline and values that
	I were taught are still with me.  Does questioning those beliefs
	make me less Christian?  I don't think so.  My parents taught me
	to think for myself and make my own value judgments.  We may 
	not agree on a lot of things, but I was allowed to become my own
	person even in our strict household.

	Did you ever notice that real life fundamentalists tend to be like
	the comic strip parodies of themselves?  That's pretty scary.

	When we lose our ability to laugh at ourselves we are in serious
	trouble.

	Re:  The 'New' Age

	I've had a lot of trouble using this term.  What is being considered
	'New Age' is often quite old.  The term seems to be misused.  In
	this 'age' BEING a New Age I would tend to agree; but in referring to
	something as a 'New Age' science/philosophy/idea I will argue that
	many of the so called New Age concepts predate Christianity by 
	centuries.  This does not make them any more 'true', or dangerous
	concepts any less dangerous.


						-- Mike

.78 Cindy;

I wondered what the article was that caused sooo much of a stir. I caught
part of the exchange between two unwelcomed noters (one of which is
amongst us ;') but I had wished I saw the slanderous 'slam against
Christians' and the following replies.

.79 Mike;

I too, like so many others, left the Catholic church long ago, but still
hold some of the beliefs I wa taught so long ago. I left because I
believed the scare-tactic approach to religion (or spirituality) was
wrong. You believe and practice because of the good it will do, for you
and those around you, not because of the 'bad' you will receive if you
don't believe.

Jay

    Re: Is this a New Age?
    
    One of the biggest questions that started my search concerned how
    I was brought up.  My parents were Catholic and both born in small
    fishing villages in Novia Scotia.  I realized I was Catholic because
    "that's how we were brought up."  I felt the first 8 years of parochial
    school was enough and started to ask more questions. . . The biggest
    was "what if I grew up in India?  Would I be a Buddhist?" 
    
    I started to look around and search for answers.  I'm not the type to
    read books *of* philosophy, but *about* philosophy, both pro and con.
    Once I understand "were they're coming from" I'll go read the books. As
    I continued my research, I realized that a search like this would be
    almost impossible twenty or more years ago. The information that I was
    reading just wasn't available and accessible like today.  If I was
    born, like my parents, in a small Catholic fishing village before
    (around) 1940, I couldn't answer these questions because of lack of
    information.  My doubts would be turned to "faith" in my own
    conclusions that would reflect the Catholic Doctrine that flourishes in
    the area. 
    
    This is a New Age because it is the first generation to have the
    world's knowledge at its fingertips.  The knowledge is there for
    all to use, for Good and Bad.  I think that "New Age thinking" attempts
    to examine all knowledge without preconceived judgments.  A lot
    of people disagree with this since they believe that their knowledge
    is better than others.  If that is true, then we will find out in
    the long run, Won't we?
    
    Dave
    
    P.S.
    Alright, we've been polling about Zodiac Signs. . . How many out
    there are (Ex-)Catholics?

The offending article.....(:^)

=============================================================================

CONSTANCE CUMBY "CLEANSED" IN "HARMONIC CONVERGENCE"
 
SPEAKS THROUGH "TRANCE CHANNEL"
 
Acapulco, Mexico (EPA), Aug 18, 1987
 
Spectators in this popular resort area were shocked yesterday when
Fundamentalist author Constance Cumby, known for her anti-"New Age"
bestsellers "Rainbows from Hell" and "Hidden Dangers of the 
Care Bears", fell into a crevice filled with molten lava.  
 
Ms. Cumby had come to Acapulco to protest what she described as
"harmonics and all other forms of humanism" and to organize a
demonstration against the planting of crystals here by devotees of "New
Age" beliefs.  At the time of her death, Ms. Cumby was exhorting her
audience to counter the "fiendish influence of rocks" by burying
photographs of Nancy Reagan "and other heros of normalcy."  She was
brandishing what appeared to be a can of deodorant in the direction of
the New Age believers when the mysterious crevice opened at Ms. Cumby's
feet, swallowing her, several cartons of her books, and a rack
displaying plush unicorns and Smurf dolls bearing labels such as
"Belial" and "Ashtoreth".  Eyewitnesses say that Ms. Cumby screamed
"It's the rapture!" immediately before the fissure closed over her with
a noise that several of them compared to belching.
 
Ms. Cumby's death stirred controversy in both the New Age encampment
and among her followers.
 
"She really did get raptured," insisted Olivetta Beehive, a Milwaukee
representative of Mary Kay Cosmetics,  "even if she went down instead
of up."  But a member of the New Age group insisted that Ms. Cumby had
not been raptured but "cleansed".  To this claim, Ms. Beehive responded
that "She didn't need to get cleansed.  She was so clean already."
 
The debate intensified approximately seven hours after Ms. Cumby's
accident when one member of the New Age gathering, a self-styled
"trance channeler" named Roland Twitchy, began speaking in a voice
eerily like that of the late author.  
 
"His eyes go all blank.  He even LOOKS like Constance," said one woman.
 
In a session in which he assumed the identity of Ms. Cumby, Mr. Twitchy
announced that she had become a convert to New Age beliefs.  "It has
all become clear to me now that I have attained the Fifth Bardo of
Utter Mindlessness."  Mr. Twitchy/Ms. Cumby attested to the pleasant
nature of the afterlife.  "It's nicer than Shopko here."  The
supposedly discorporate writer assured her former friends that all was
well.  "My guides have initiated me into est...  or maybe it was TM.   
 
Mr. Twitchy revealed that, in a former life, Ms. Cumby had been a
housewife in Atlantis.  "My husband and I had a business selling solar
heating units.  It was just like Amway!  It was a pyramid!  A PYRAMID!! 
That's not a coincidence, you know."
 
Since those early sessions, confusion has spread as several other
people in Mexico have begun speaking in the voice of Constance Cumby. 
Mr. Twitchy says he will apply for a copyright.

    Re: .81 & .83
    
    Me too!
    
    Carole
    

    Re .83:
    
    >>    Alright, we've been polling about Zodiac Signs. . . How many out
    >>    there are (Ex-)Catholics?

    >Yes. ...
    
    Is that in Arabic numerals, or Roman? :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    me too 

    Re: .85 (Arabic or Roman numerals)
    
    One question that I have been pondering for a while concerned the
    "number of the beast"... 666
    
    Supposidly, it will be marked on the head of the anti-christ.
    Is it suppose to be represented in Roman, Arabic, binary, or Barcode?
    P.S.
    What is the Roman representation of 666?
    
    Dave

.87 re; number 666

According to some, Barcoding IS the beast since all barcodes are supposed
to contain 3 six's (something to do with stop/start points?).

666 always reminds me of a bizzare album by that name done by a group
called Aphrodite's Child. *Real* strange.

Jay

    Re. 87
    
    When I registered my car in June, I received new plates. 
    I got the strangest feeling when I saw that the first
    three digits were:  666
    
    Should I take that as some kind of omen or what?
    
    
    Rosemary

    Re 666 (last few):
    
    The actual quote, just to establish the foundation, is taken from
    Revelation 13:11-18 --
    
    "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had
    two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.  
    "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,
    and casuseth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the
    first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    "And he doth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from
    heaven  on the earth in sight of men.
    "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth, by the means of those
    miracles which he had the power to do in the sight of the first
    beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should
    make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and
    did live.
    "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that
    the image of the beast should both spear, and cause as many as would
    not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
    "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
    bond, to receive a mark on their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    "And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, or
    the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    "Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath understaning count the number
    of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six
    hundred threescore and six."
    
    Now, in order to "have understanding," we must remember when this
    was written: it was while the early Christians were a persecuted
    minority in the Roman Empire.  One theory is that the man with the
    power to "give life to the image of the [first] beast" was the leader
    of the Roman Empire, who enforced the worship of the Roman gods
    and who "brought fire to earth" by burning Rome -- that is, Nero.
    Others have used various numerological arguments to "prove" that
    this person or that is the [second] "Beast."  The sport is called
    "beasting"; one of the latest recepients of this is the current
    President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan (all of whose
    names contain six letters each).  
    
    The Roman numerals for 666 = DCLXVI, but there's no proof that St.
    John used Roman notation for this (no proof he didn't, either).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    DCLXVI?!?!?
    
    Good Heavens, surely not....Version 16 of DCL??
    
    (Guess we have a while to wait...)
    
    :-)
    
    Dawn
    

    To answer this question we'd have to know a little about early
    Christian, Jewish and Gnostic numerology.
    
    I was always told that the number 6 represents wo/man perfected and
    that 3 6's represented man deified. Thulsy the next theological step
    is that wo/man will accept their own deity.
    
    Actually thinking about this I agree with the prphecy. When wo/man
    learns to express their own deity we won't need monotheistic belief
    systems.  I guess every system knows it start and end. It's the
    blackballing of the next step that bothers me. 

RE: .90
    
    Steve -- my knowledge of the New Testament (and for that matter,
    the Old) is abysmal (no pun intended), but isn't Revelation believed
    to have been written orriginally in Greek?  In which case the number
    would have been in Greek as well.  I'm really unclear on this, but
    I don't think that any of the New Testament is believed to have
    been originally written in Latin, rather all of it was written in
    either Aramaic or Greek.  In neither language would roman numerals
    be likely to be used.
    
    					Topher

    re .91:
    
    >....................................... isn't Revelation believed
    >to have been written orriginally in Greek?  In which case the number
    >would have been in Greek as well.
    
    Actually, it _was_ originally written in Greek; however, it was
    written by those under Roman rule.  The thought is that Roman
    numerals would be a subtle dig at the "rulers"; particularly if they
    secretly spelled out a name.  But "beasting" is such a sport that
    a room with three "beasters" would probably yield at least five
    derivations.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
     

    RE: .61
    
    Rubbish!
    
    Matthew 23
    verse 27
    
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like
    unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but
    are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleaness. 
    
    28  Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within
    ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
    
    34  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and
    scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of
    them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from
    city to city.
    
    37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and
    stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered
    thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under
    her wings, and ye would not!
    
    All of the above are Christ's words.
    
    *******************************************************************
    Humanity grew weary of its doubtful state of mind
    So it summoned from far, and called from near
    The wise men thought to be sincere
    To heal its wounds and make it whole
    And lead the way back to the soul
    
    The charlatans, they stayed behind to count their bags of gold
    And some stayed away, as if to say
    "I know that my way's the only way"
    Afraid to learn they may be wrong
    They preach their nothingness at home
    
    But the wise men came together with the hope to free mankind
    From the rubbish that had gathered in God's name
    To embrace and trust each other in the search for the supreme
    *And they found that all the teachings were the same*
    
    And when, at last, the word went round that all were one and all
    Many returned to seek the light, nobody claimed that he was right
    It's sad to know it's just a song
    To dream and hope still can't be wrong
    
    Spiritual Fantasy, by Steppenwolf
    
    I have volumes more to say on this subject, but it makes me too
    upset...  Don't these people have anything better to do with their
    time, as Christians (which I call myself, by the way, but I am ashamed
    to share the name with the likes of this mentality) with all the
    despair and and work that needs to be done in the world, than to
    spend their time condeming and judging others? Did Christ himself
    not say "Judge not, lest you yourselves be judged? Thou hypocrite!
    Remove the mote from thine own eye, that thou might see the mote
    in thy brother's more clearly."
    
    Doug Wetherington

    I read this entire topic yesterday; put in a well-thought reply,
    and then my path to the remote node was lost!  SIGH! :-(
    
    .61 was astounding.  Whomever said that it was amazing, what fear
    could do, was *right on*.  But, what is there of which to be afraid?
    Has the New Age movement caught on so well that a threat is actually
    posed to those whose stance is with traditional, organized religion?
    Must have... because Zola Leavitt, a Rabbi with a �-or 1-hour syndicated
    show, had many similar things to say about the New Age movement,
    pointing out that one of the so-called "New-Age gods" was Old Pan,
    aka The Devil.  Since when did New Age become synonomous with Satan?
    This leads me to believe that the *real* thing wrong with New-Age
    thinking is the opinions of what is New-Age thinking, as put forth
    by non-New-Age thinkers.  I thought that the New Age was the Age
    of Aquarius; a time of harmony and peace, both of the self and of
    the planet, after the martyristic Piscean age.  Yes, there are quacks,
    et cetera, who will take advantage of anything that looks
    trendy...certainly, these "quacks" aren't limited to the New-Age
    Movement.  Anyone arguing against the movement can certainly stress
    the angle that the fakes take...it certainly is easier than doing
    an in-depth study of those who take a more quiet, believable stance.
    A lot of people fear change, after all, and it is easier to argue
    against a different concept and find what, with it, is wrong, than
    it is to reorganize belief systems.
    
    Directly to John; you say that SOAPBOX people think you are a hippie
    flower-child, and then you come to DEJAVU with a topic like, "What's
    Wrong with New-Age Thinking."  Seems to me that your thrill in life
    comes from stirring controversy.  I know that I would not put myself
    in a position as you have by going into the CHRISTIAN notes file
    and starting a topic like "What's Wrong with Accepting Jesus as
    the Christ".  But...to each, his own, as is said. (Clarification;
    I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting Jesus as the
    Christ.  This is here for example's sake.)
    
    I have found New-Age thinkers who also consider themselves to be
    Christians and Jews.  It seems to me that the New-Age movement is
    far more tolerant of other viewpoints than are other viewpoints,
    tolerant of *it*.
    
    Regarding the aspirin argument;  There was a time, not so long ago,
    when we *didn't* know how aspirin worked.  However, we accepted
    and believed in its healing qualities.  Perhaps, in the future,
    John, we will find more acceptable-to-you explanations for how crystals
    work.  You know, a lot of scientific thought began with ideas which
    others scoffed, but the "loonies" later proved.  It takes belief
    *first* (or else an accident occurs in which something is discovered).
    Proof comes later.  I personally know that my crystals help me to
    heal; both myself, and others.  I've watched my crystals change
    form after healings.  I've felt them change energy.  Since you haven't
    had the tangible experience, you call it hogwash.  If you haven't
    experienced something yourself, and if no one else can offer you
    adequate explanation (in your terms of what is adequate), you don't 
    believe.  In my impression, your reality is probably pretty limited 
    because of this.
    
    Regarding Kirlian photography...the aura *is* electric, so you were
    correct when you mentioned that.  But try and explain how it is
    that people who see auras have seen those same colors and energies,
    in the same sizes and shapes, as is now available to the eye via
    Kirlian photography.  What...you haven't seen it with your naked
    eye, so it doesn't exist, even if someone *else* *can* see it? As
    I said before...in my impression, your reality is pretty limited.
    You include only that which has already been proven.  I only wish
    that Einstein could speak with you about that attitude.
    
    There is much which we can learn, if we are, to it, open.  As Steve
    Kallis, Jr. says, you don't have to be so open, that out, fall your
    brains, but you don't have to be so closed, that nothing new gets
    admitted, either.
    
    You still haven't offered a scientific definition of "Love".  As
    for your thinking, having more in common with other noters in this
    topic than they might think, could you please explain in what way(s)?

RE: .96 (GENRAL::DANIEL)

    >  Directly to John; you say that SOAPBOX people think you are a hippie
    flower-child, and then you come to DEJAVU with a topic like, "What's
    Wrong with New-Age Thinking."  Seems to me that your thrill in life
    comes from stirring controversy. < 


No, but I do enjoy a spirited discussion.



    >  I know that I would not put myself in a position as you have by
    going into the CHRISTIAN notes file and starting a topic like "What's
    Wrong with Accepting Jesus as the Christ".  < 

What you forget is that this conference is called DEJAVU, not NEWAGE.  One
can be interested in aspects of psychic phenomena without subscribing one
iota to so-called New Age thinking.  Therefore, it is appropriate that I
should enter such a topic here.  To my way of thinking, it would be
inappropriate to enter an anti-Jesus topic in CHRISTIAN, because the
participants there all hold in common that Jesus is the Christ.  The topic
would be more appropriate in RELIGION, where I could expect more balanced
discussion.  There are instances, however, where I will enter an "anti-"
topic in a "pro-" conference (a good example is topic #70 in Anarcy::Wrestling
where I bash TV wrestling).  If people don't like my views, tough.  I don't
say anything in NOTES that I wouldn't say face-to-face.  


    >   Regarding the aspirin argument;  There was a time, not so long ago,
    when we *didn't* know how aspirin worked.  However, we accepted and
    believed in its healing qualities.  Perhaps, in the future, John, we
    will find more acceptable-to-you explanations for how crystals work.  < 

The difference is that aspirin, whether or not one knows HOW it works, can
be scientifically *proven* to work.  Not so with crystals.  I could as rightly
claim that pencil sharpeners have healing powers.  

Crystals are attractive to persons who lack a solid foundation in science
and/or reasoning (man, am I going to catch it for that one!).  How often
we hear that crystals "focus energies."  But for this claim to have any
validity, one must first prove that such "energies" exist, then one must
demonstrate that crystals focus them, then one should be able to explain
HOW.  That's something the crystal quacks just can't do.  Wouldn't it sound
silly if I said "ballpoint pens are complex modulators and resonators that
focus and direct cosmic energy?"  Yet if you substitute the word "crystals"
for "ballpoint pens" you get the exact claim made by many believers in crystal
healing.


    >  I personally know that my crystals help me to heal; both myself, and
    others. < 

Great!  Positive thinking can do a lot.  I suggest that you could get equally
good results if you believed in the healing power of wax fruit.



    > I've watched my crystals change form after healings. < 


Why, oh why, do people think crystals are so special?  ALL SOLIDS HAVE A
CRYSTALLINE STRUCTURE.  If your crystals can spontaneously change their
morphology, then perhaps you have noticed the same thing happening with
your chair.


    >  I've felt them change energy.  < 


WHAT energy?  How do you know that what you feel is a result of ENERGY?



    >  Since you haven't had the tangible experience, you call it hogwash.
    If you haven't experienced something yourself, and if no one else can
    offer you adequate explanation (in your terms of what is adequate), you
    don't believe.  < 


Where did you get that idea?  I have often changed my mind where someone
has presented bona fide facts or a logical argument.  And as I always say,
"you don't have to go to Egypt to know that there are pyramids there." 
I have seen enough factual evidence to support the belief that the pyramid
of Kufu does exist.  Can't say the same for New Age hooha.


    >  In my impression, your reality is probably pretty limited because of
    this.  < 


"MY" reality?  Reality existed long before I did.  Nature equipped me, as
she did with all animals, with all the senses I need to interpret things
as they really are.  So where's the limit?  This is a wonderful world!


    >  Regarding Kirlian photography...the aura *is* electric, so you were
    correct when you mentioned that. < 

I did not say the aura is electric, I said that Kirlian photography shows
electrical discharge paths.  Without a source of excitation (high voltage)
there is no "aura."


    >  But try and explain how it is that people who see auras have seen
    those same colors and energies, in the same sizes and shapes, as is now
    available to the eye via Kirlian photography. < 


Most Kirlian photography is in black-and-white.  And just by reading this
conference, you can see that people who claim to see auras have wildly varying
interpretations of what an aura looks like.  The images generated by Kirlian
photography are no more paranormal than is the discharge of a Tesla coil.


    > You include only that which has already been proven.  I only wish
    that Einstein could speak with you about that attitude. < 


Having read _Enstein's Essays in Science_, I'd be willing to bet that his
view would be more in accordance with mine than with yours.


    >  You still haven't offered a scientific definition of "Love".  < 


What you define as love and what I define as
love could be radically different.  Charles Manson said that one could express
love through killing; do you agree?  The dictionary defines love as everything
from "Strong affection for another arising out of kinship" to "warm
enthusiasm."  Love is a *notion,* and to expect me to scientifically define
a notion is ludicrous.  


John M.                                                               

    If you refer to one of the very first notes, John, I'm sure that
    you'll see that this notesfile was named DEJAVU in lieu of a better
    name.  Even the person who named the file, said that.  And you must
    know that many proponents of New-Age thinking write here.  When
    you knock crystals and their actual power/benefit, you must know,
    if you have read through this file at all, that most everyone in
    this file has a special affiliation with crystals.  And many of
    the things to which you directly refer as "hogwash" are viewed in
    a much different light by DEJAVU noters.  My argument that you put
    this topic in here as a direct affront, stands.  (You and I didn't
    get very far in the COLORADO notesfile, either; as I recall, you
    present generalizations that don't work as well as you might like.
    I've seen that under this topic, as well.)
    
    Yes, aspirin can *NOW* be scientifically proven to work.  This was
    not *always* the case !! Scientists were *once* baffled by this--and
    that was my entire point!  I think that, someday, there *will* be
    scientific proof that crystals do work.
    
    I took a very heavy-duty test out of college that tested, among
    other things, one's ability to reason.  I was the 99th percentile
    out of 100 percent possible.  My ability to reason is extremely
    solid.  And I am attracted to crystals.  If you study how crystals
    were formed, and here I am speaking of quartz-and quartz-related
    crystals, which are those most prominently used by people who heal
    with crystals, you will see little, if any, relationship between
    how they were formed and how a ballpoint pen/wax fruit are formed.
    Crystals of this nature were formed by the earth's *ENERGY*; by
    an *INCREDIBLE* amount thereof!!  A ballpoint pen or wax fruit would
    crack, if not break down completely, under less than 1/100th of
    the pressure that forms quartz-and quartz-related crystals!!!!!
    Your analogy doesn't hold up any better than the pen or the fruit.
    As to the explanation of *what* the energies are, and *how* they
    work, it's like I said above; there is no reason why science won't
    eventually come up with some sort of measuring device that will
    satisfy the likes of *you*.  Changes that I have noted in my crystals;
    A new rainbow on the inside (YES, JOHN, A NEW RAINBOW ON THE INSIDE.);
    fractures to the point; clouding up or clearing up internally; what
    appear to be "burn marks" on the outside.
    
    *Since you haven't had the tangible experience, you call  it hogwash.
    *If you haven't experienced something yourself, and if no one else
    *can offer you adequate explanation (in your terms of what is ade-
    *quate), you don't believe.
    
    >Where did you get that idea?  I have often changed my mind where
    >someone has presented bona-fide facts or a logical argument.
    
    Bona-fide facts and arguments based on pure logic fall under that
    category of "your terms of what is adequate".  I am suggesting that
    facts can be found through other means.  Since you reject any other
    means but these, you limit your reality.  Facts can be found through
    the senses; sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and those other senses
    in which you don't believe (and, therfore, are unable to use, so
    I won't bother wasting the space to tell you about them).
    
    *Your* reality, i.e., how you perceive the way the world around
    you works, is definitely different from mine.  If you'd like a further
    explanation on the topic of how one reality does not exist for any
    two people, please read _Illusions; the Adventures of a Reluctant
    Messiah_ by Richard Bach.  It presents a lot of ideas with which
    you can have fun disagreeing.
    
    Of *course* you didn't say the aura was electric.  Heaven forbid,
    you should accept the concept of an aura at all!  You did say that
    Kirlean photography shows electrical discharge paths.  That's what
    some of us refer to as the aura.  Circular argument.  People describe
    wildly different auras because auras are wildly different.  I can
    change my aura just by replying to one of your notes.
    
    As for Einstein accepting your viewpoint more readily than mine...
    I don't accept that that is necessarily true.  He might.  But I
    guess we'd have to channel him first.  (Sorry...couldn't resist.)
    
    Love is a notion?  I thought it was an emotion.  Is an emotion the
    same as a notion in your world?  (Oh, I forgot, you think that you
    and I live in the same world...)  Well, then, assuming that you
    live in a world different from mine, since I can hardly assume that
    we live in the same world, how *do* you define love?  or would you
    rather continue to evade the question, which has been posed to
    you by more than just me?

    I wouldn't say anything here, to you, that I wouldn't say to your
    face, either.  I guess it's a good thing we don't work in the same
    plant.  ;-)
    
    Meredith     

RE: .98 (Meredith)

    >... many of the things to which you directly refer as "hogwash" are
    viewed in a much different light by DEJAVU noters.  < 

I don't care.


    >  My argument that you put this topic in here as a direct affront,
    stands.  < 

Call 'em as you see 'em, Mer.



    >  (You and I didn't get very far in the COLORADO notesfile, either; as
    I recall, you present generalizations that don't work as well as you
    might like. I've seen that under this topic, as well.)  < 


When was I ever in the COLORADO notesfile?  You must be experiencing alternate
realities. 

    
    >  Yes, aspirin can *NOW* be scientifically proven to work.  This was
    not *always* the case !! Scientists were *once* baffled by this--and
    that was my entire point!  I think that, someday, there *will* be
    scientific proof that crystals do work.  < 


And, once again, you miss the point.  The FDA accepts new medications only
after the most rigorous testing.  Aspirin can be proven to work by
administering it to a group of people, giving another group placebos, and
comparing the results.  In such a test aspirin is shown to effectively reduce
pain.  Now try that with crystals and see how far you get!

BTW, there are volumes and volumes of scientific information on the formation
and properties of crystals.  Crystals have wonderful properties, but healing
is not among them.  You might as well claim that you can communicate with
alien beings by staring at antimony. 


    >   Crystals of this nature were formed by the earth's *ENERGY*; by an
    *INCREDIBLE* amount thereof!!  A ballpoint pen or wax fruit would
    crack, if not break down completely, under less than 1/100th of the
    pressure that forms quartz-and quartz-related crystals!!!!!  < 

Great!  Now what the hell does that have to do with a quartz crystal's supposed
ability to heal?


    > Your analogy doesn't hold up any better than the pen or the fruit. < 

I suggest that is because you didn't get it.  I was saying that it is your
*belief* in crystals that brings you results (a la placebo) and not the
crystals themselves, so any object--pencils, wax fruit, whatever--will do.
SO WHAT if a crystal is formed under pressure?  Lots of things are.  How
does that give a crystal healing powers?

    >... please read _Illusions; the Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah_ by
    Richard Bach.  It presents a lot of ideas with which you can have fun
    disagreeing.  < 


I read 1/2 of it years ago.  I am not in the habit of confusing fiction
with reality.
    

    >  Of *course* you didn't say the aura was electric.  Heaven forbid,
    you should accept the concept of an aura at all!  You did say that
    Kirlean photography shows electrical discharge paths.  That's what some
    of us refer to as the aura.  Circular argument.  People describe wildly
    different auras because auras are wildly different.  I can change my
    aura just by replying to one of your notes.  < 

Don't you see the problem here?  I was trying to point out that without
a source of electrical excitation (thousands of volts) there IS no aura.
You claim that auras are electrical discharge paths and that people can
see them.  How can you have an electrical discharge where no surplus of
electrons exists?  That's like claiming that a flashlight can light up without
batteries.  A person CAN demonstrate electrical discharge by standing on
top of a giant Tesla coil, but that is a phenomenon that *everybody* can
see, not just a blessed few.


    
    >  As for Einstein accepting your viewpoint more readily than mine... I
    don't accept that that is necessarily true.  He might.  But I guess
    we'd have to channel him first.  (Sorry...couldn't resist.) < 

He must have lied to me through my Ouija board!  ;-)



    >  Love is a notion?  I thought it was an emotion.  Is an emotion the
    same as a notion in your world?  (Oh, I forgot, you think that you and
    I live in the same world...)  Well, then, assuming that you live in a
    world different from mine, since I can hardly assume that we live in
    the same world, how *do* you define love?  < 


What, am I talking to a space alien or something?

Call it what you like. "Love" is a word applied to any number of emotional
states.  What you call love I might call infatuation.  What I call love
you might call sexual arousal.  Why do you expect me to define something
that is open to interpretation?

We can reduce emotions to two states: positive and negative.  Love is the
positive state applied to a particular object.  Chocolate may give you a
positive feeling, so you may say you love chocolate.  Your boyfriend might
give you a positive feeling, so you could say you love him.  Calculus might
give you a negative feeling, so you could say you hate/dislike calculus.
What's so complicated?  Why do I have to define this anyway?

John M.                                         

    re: .99 (John M.)
    
    	Well, John M., some people don't believe the sun ever shines in
    	Washington either.  It's all relative to what you've experienced.
    	We know different because we've both lived there.  But because
    	I'm from the "right" side of the Cascades I can also tell you the 
    	sun shines there more often than in Seattle...

						Carla
    

    Re .last_few:
    
    A couple of things, friends...
    
    * Aspirin:  it can be scientifically shown to work, but the exact
    mechanism hasn't been fully determined.  I heard one doctor say
    that if aspirin was a new drug and was submitted to the FDA, it
    wouldn't pass.  Fortunately, there was aspirin before there was
    the FDA (speaking as an occasional sufferer of rheumatism).  
    
    * Kirlian photography: the high-voltage source is effectively a
    modified Tesla Coil, John (funny you should say that).  There are
    some who say a Kirlian photograph is of The Aura.  My mind is open
    on that; it might be the image of _an_ aura; there's a difference.
    I had a Kirlian photograph done of my hand, and it was in color.
    Basically bluish-white with a fringe of solid blue.  Proves nothing
    one way or the other, but color photos have been taken.  Schlieren
    photography _sets up_ a condition that makes photography of supersonic
    shock-wave phenomena possible: without the Schlieren setup, we couldn't
    _photograph_ the aerodynamic condition; that doesn't mean it doesn't
    exist without the setup.  Similarly, _if_ a Kirlian photograph is
    of The Aura, and The Aura isn't basically electric, it doesn't mean
    that without the high-voltage generation, The Aura doesn't exist.
    In short, I reserve judgement until I get more facts.
    
    * Crystals:  tthere's a whole note discussing the pros and cons
    of these.
    
    In short, everybody, chill out.  It's a wonderful world.  Learn
    to disagree without starting to take it personally.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    * 

    Re .99 (John)
    
    In regards to the FDA and rigorous testing, there are numerous drugs
    on the market that have been proven less than effective, both
    over-the-counter and prescription medications.  Many of these have
    been proven ineffective as long as 25 years ago, yet they are still
    prescribed and used.
    
    So, while all drugs are tested, there are a lot of them out there
    that are no more effective than (pick the quack healing method of
    your choice).
    
    Elizabeth

    re; Steve K. Jr. - Steve, I'd rather *not* chill out.  I'm getting
    enough energy from this to get a lot of work done.  But thanks for
    the concern.
    
    *many of the things to which you directly refer as "hogwash" are
    *viewed in a much different light by DEJAVU noters.

    >I don't care.
    
    I don't care whether or not you care.  My purpose is not to *make*
    you care.  Each person has to choose that which is most right for
    him/her.  But if you don't care about what DEJAVU noters believe
    and present, then why do you bother writing in this file?  I think
    you really *do* care, somewhere in there.  So.  Au contrare, mon
    frere.  BTW, I doubt that Shirley MacLaine would take the time out
    to say hello to you, any more than Einstein would get himself channeled
    to settle the question of with whom he sides. ;-)
    
    I do call 'em as I see 'em.  So do you.  
    
    I checked out COLORADO, since the note in reference was back in
    November, and, by gawk!, it wasn't you...but the person whom it
    was, writes in the exact same style and has the same attitude as
    do you.  Yes, there is another DECWET::MITCHELL.  I think he might 
    be a protogee...the name is different, but the aura feels the same...
    
    You accuse me of missing your points.  Don't assume my inferences.
    Just because my responses don't fit your "points" in *your* eyes
    doesn't mean I missed your point.  It may very well be *you*, who
    is missing *mine*, since obviously you don't understand how my
    response(s) relate to your point(s).  We could start by giving a
    group of people healing crystals, and then giving another group,
    ball-point pens or waxed fruit, and giving yet another group, nothing
    at all, and comparing the results.  AHA!! Incidentally, this type
    of testing *still* doesn't tell you *how* whatever is being tested,
    works.  You say, "Now, try that with crystals, and see how far you
    get."  I would be more than glad to.  And, I might add, you have
    no idea how far I would get.
    
    >Crystals have wonderful properties, but healing is not among them.
    
    How do *you* know?  Is it because no one has measured them for healing
    qualities?  Are you so gifted in your knowledge, that you can now
    determine everything which has healing qualities, and everything
    that does not?  Or do you base your knowledge on that which has
    been proven scientifically?  *That* will limit your reality.  Science
    is an art which is, as of yet, still being defined.  Science does
    not know its own limits.  It seems, though, that *you* are ready
    to put limits upon it.  I see the breach between science and
    metaphysics as becoming more narrow.  There's a lot left to be found
    in the world; a lot of new devices to be developed to test for the
    very things that you say are not scientific...talk to any dyed-in-the
    -wool scientist, and he will tell you that we are, as of yet, just
    babes in the woods when it comes to truly *knowing*.  A true scientist
    doesn't limit possibilities. *You* do.
    
    Perhaps antimony is used in spaceships operated by alien beings,
    but I doubt that they need it for communication if they've gotten
    far enough to be here.  However, that is not to say that one could
    not communicate with an alien being by staring at antimony.  The
    scientific question would be, did the antimony relay the communication,
    or was it directly being-to-being, the antimony simply existing
    as the object at which one was staring?  (The Possibilities Are
    Endless, and the Scientific Mind Considers Them All...or as many
    as are possible when *considering also*, human imperfection...)
    
    >I am not in the habit of confusing fiction with reality.
    
    I don't accept your definition of "fiction"; therefore, I think
    you are probably a very confused person; you are simply unaware
    of how confused you really *are*.
    
    The source of electrical excitation is the human body...or is it
    the soul as it exists within the body?  oh...so you only accept
    it if "everybody, not just the blessed few" can experience it...
    wow, that doesn't leave much room for personal strength and
    exceptional ability...so I guess you'll have to settle for being
    average, since, by your own rule, you cannot be exceptional.
    
    As far as I know, I am not a space alien.  However, I may or may
    not be, in a parallel existence.  To myself, I'm not an alien, because
    I'm always at home around me.  I'm sure a lot of my thoughts seem
    alien to you, which could make me an alien in your reality.
    
    I enjoyed your level of frustration at being pinned down to define
    love.  The fact is, you know you can't really define it, except
    to say it's positive.  Open the door a little wider, and you'll
    see that there are a *lot* of things that are undefinable.  So maybe
    you could quit asking each of us to define things for you.   We
    can't always do that.  Just because something is without a logical
    argument, doesn't mean it's unreal, doesn't exist, or cannot be
    *experienced*.
    
    Meredith

    Aspirin mechanisms -- A small part of the mechanism by which aspirin
    works has been elucidated -- I believe a Nobel prize was won for
    this discovery.  However, it is a large step to go from saying that
    we have learned something about its mechanism to knowing how it
    works.  Specifically what has been learned is that aspirin *somehow*
    stimulates the production of certain peptides (small proteins) which
    *somehow* regulate certain types of pain, tissue swelling and fever.
    
    Aspirin acceptance -- aspirin became part of the standard pharmocology
    before our current standards of drug efficacy testing were laid
    down.  I rather strongly suspect that *someone* has done a proper
    controlled study on it -- if in no other way than using it as a
    second "active" control condition in testing some other drug, but
    its widespread use is supported by two "weak" basis: anecdotal and
    experiential evidence (i.e., "Try it, it knocked my headache right
    out") and arguing from authority (i.e., "Dr. So-and-so recommends
    it.").
    
    Crystals -- Once again, John, your statements have the flavor of
    scientism rather than science.  Do you know of any carefully done
    controlled studies of the healing properties of crystals?  If so,
    cite them, give us a hint where we might find them, or describe
    them and we can deal with the evidence.  As it stands we have you
    dogmatically asserting that *if* such an experiment were to be
    performed than it *would* fail -- all hail currently accepted
    scientific models as they are Truth.  The "Crystal People" (hey,
    I like that :-) present weak (experiential) evidence and you present
    dogma.  Neither is science but they're closer to it than you are.
    
    Let me give you a comparable situation from about 20 years ago.
    A lot of people were talking about the effectiveness of acupuncture
    for relieving pain, and had been for years.  Since acupuncture did
    not fit into the current medical model of pain it was pooh-poohed
    as "clearly a placebo effect".  But there were problems with that:
    specifically its apparent effectivness on animals and its rather
    high success rate (i.e., it worked much more frequently than "other"
    placebos).  Finally someone got around to doing a double blind
    experiment and guess what: accupuncture turned out to be highly
    effective in relieving "peripheral pain" (pain in the limbs).  A
    new model was put forward to explain the results (the "gate model")
    and this contributed to a broad change in the way that perpheral
    nerves were viewed (traditionally they were viewed as passive "wires"
    for conducting sensory and motor impulses, they are now viewed as
    being much more active).
    
    Later it was shown that the effects of acupuncture for peripheral pain
    relief diminished to placebo levels when a morphine antagonist was
    administered first.  This was strong evidence that in this use at
    least acupuncture worked by stimulating the localized production
    of "endogenous opiates", which provided a neurochemical mechanism for
    the gate model.  This was, actually, part of the evidence that
    endogenous opiates existed at all, and contributed to the development
    of a second medical revolution: neuropeptides.  One of the outcomes
    of this new area of research was the partial elucidation of the
    mechanisms by which aspirin work (which is a different type of
    neuropeptide than acupuncture -- I'm pretty sure that aspirin is
    uninfluenced by morphine antagonists).
    
    No, this is not the "Galileo argument" ("They thought Galileo was
    crazy and he was right.  They also think I'm crazy so I must be
    right.").  Personally I think that whatever power that crystals
    have for healing are probably directly mediated by *psychological*
    factors (this includes both the probably not paranormal ability of the
    mind to influence the healing of the body (dubbed the "placebo effect"
    or "faith healing" and mostly ignored by medicine; and possibly a
    paranormal healing effect for which there is a great deal of suggestive
    evidence).
    
    But when you assert untested theory as if it were fact you leave
    science behind and enter the realm of faith.  Apparent dogmatism such as
    you've been displaying gives science an unjustified bad reputation.
    
    						Topher

    
    Please - I would hope that there is enough room in this conference
    to allow everyone to be entitled to their own set of beliefs - crystal
    healers, skeptics, palm readers, artichoke eaters, yuppie New Age
    Types, dog lovers, chocolate lovers (sorry....couldn't resist),
    Pagans, Christians, and whatever you are, either now or in the future
    - recognizing that it is a virtue to watch someone change and grow
    over time to be the best they can be, and that the only real love
    is the love given to help someone along their own spiritual growth
    path in life......whether you believe in what they do or not.  (Hm,
    did I just slip in that 4 letter word in here????)
    
    If John M. doesn't believe in the healing powers of crystals - what's
    the big deal?  If Meredith does, then that's fine.  There are
    appropriate topics for both of you to be quite happy in, and others
    that will bring you together in some ways as well - and that's good
    too.  There really is something for everyone here, I believe.
    
    At the risk of sounding like an advertisement for Scott Peck's books,
    I'd like to suggest that you go read the first couple of notes under
    the topic of 'Religions and World Peace' (if you haven't read them
    already).  Then come back and continue the discussions, since it seems 
    like you all have much more to say on this and perhaps some common 
    ground can be reached - something I hope will also happen in the world 
    as well.  Here is to the hope of Peace through acceptance and 
    understanding (of yourselves AND each other).  Peck defines a
    'community' as a group of people who can fight gracefully.  I'd like 
    to think of DEJAVU as a community of people who fit this description.
                                    
    Shalom,
    
    Cindy

re: .98, .99, etc. --
			"Food fight!  Food fight!"


Well, the argument against John's position is that people were
chewing on willow bark (or whatever the hell it was) to get
aspirin naturally long before anyone put it into a tablet and
did a double-blind study of its efficacy.  Don't knock the
value of experience, even if superstition can creep in.

The argument against Meredith's position is that some folks
have a fairly formal definition of what terms like "energy"
and "electrical" mean, so don't use those terms to mean
something more subjective if your intent is to carry on a
dialogue with those other folks.

But both of you seem to be enjoying your argument, so don't
let me be a spoil-sport!
							Pc.

RE: .106
    
    An argument against someone insisting on "a fairly formal definition
    of what terms like 'energy' ... mean(s), so don't use [that term]
    to mean something more subjective..." is that energy (but not
    electrical) originally refered to a *human* quality, a meaning still
    invoked when someone is referred to as "energetic".  When Newton
    was putting together his theory of mechanics he borrowed some common
    terms (energy, inertia, gravity, force etc.) which he felt would
    help communicate intuitively the concepts he was trying to deal
    with.  This is still common practice in science, when you need
    a word to cover a new concept you can coin a new word or adapt an
    old one metaphorically.  Sometimes in the latter case you will find
    that the word expands in meaning and stops being metaphorical --
    a deep semantic connection is made between the previously distinct
    meanings (example: see what has been happening lately in physics
    and non-linear dynamics to the meaning of the term "percolation").
    
    If anyone wishes to argue that they "energy" that they are speaking
    about with "crystal energy" is the classical physics concept of
    energy, I'll ask for your reasons for believing that they are the
    same, and give my reasons for feeling that it is unlikely.  It is
    reasonable, however, to say that it is *like* energy in the classical
    physics sense and may well be a component of energy in the traditional
    popular sense.
    
    It would, of course, help communication, as Pc. says, if you make
    clear that you mean something more than or different from the classical
    physics concept of energy, if indeed you mean that.
    
    						Topher

    RE: .103 (GENRAL::DANIEL)
    
    >... if you don't care about what DEJAVU noters believe and present,
    then why do you bother writing in this file?  I think you really *do*
    care, somewhere in there.  < 

Right.  My contention was that *some* of the opinions in this file are hogwash,
not all of them (Crystals and channeling cults top the list).  I have learned
some very interesting things in DEJAVU and intend to learn more.  But I
know hogwash when I see it (it looks like dirty water).


    >... BTW, I doubt that Shirley MacLaine would take the time out to say
    hello to you, any more than Einstein would get himself channeled to
    settle the question of with whom he sides. ;-)  < 

Guess again, ma petite planchette!  I met her at a party a few years back
and she said more than "hello" to me (of course she was more "normal" then).


    >   I checked out COLORADO, since the note in reference was back in
    November, and, by gawk!, it wasn't you...but the person whom it was,
    writes in the exact same style and has the same attitude as do you.
    Yes, there is another DECWET::MITCHELL.  I think he might be a
    protogee...the name is different, but the aura feels the same... < 

Where is he that sounds like DECWET::MITCHELL?  Tell me, that I too might
fall down and worship him.  (In other words, please point me to the note
in question so that I can judge if you have just complimented or insulted
me.  ;-)  )
    

    >  We could start by giving a group of people healing crystals, and
    then giving another group, ball-point pens or waxed fruit, and giving
    yet another group, nothing at all, and comparing the results.  < 

No, we could start by giving some of the people real crystals and giving
the rest fake crystals.  Neither the participants nor the experimenters
would know who got what until the data were in.


    >  AHA!! Incidentally, this type of testing *still* doesn't tell you
    *how* whatever is being tested, works.  You say, "Now, try that with
    crystals, and see how far you get."  I would be more than glad to.
    And, I might add, you have no idea how far I would get.  < 

Do as you like.  As the person claiming that crystals have some kind of
magic power, the burden of proof is on you.


    >>  Crystals have wonderful properties, but healing is not among them. <<
    
   > How do *you* know?  Is it because no one has measured them for healing
    qualities?  Are you so gifted in your knowledge, that you can now
    determine everything which has healing qualities, and everything that
    does not?  <

You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that crystal have no healing
power in and of themselves.  Hey, did you know that the secret of time travel
is woven into my bikini briefs?


    >   A true scientist doesn't limit possibilities. *You* do.  < 


Oh, and I suppose you are now reading my mind for me?

What this whole argument boils down to is science vs. superstition.  Yes,
Mer, your belief in crystals is SUPERSTITIOUS in the true sense of the word!
If you want to subscribe to a holdover from the dark ages, have fun.  


    
    >   Perhaps antimony is used in spaceships operated by alien beings,
    but I doubt that they need it for communication if they've gotten far
    enough to be here.  However, that is not to say that one could not
    communicate with an alien being by staring at antimony.  < 


SO WHAT?  That assertion means NOTHING.  This brings us back to the giant
water-lilly on your head.  Did you know that there is one there?  Just because
you do not see it does not mean it is not there.  Do you see how silly this
becomes?  ANYTHING is possible.  Princess Di could really be Jimmy Hoffa.
I could be Jesus H. Christ.  The moon could be green cheese.  Crystals could
channel psychic energy.




    >> I am not in the habit of confusing fiction with reality. << 
    
    > I don't accept your definition of "fiction"; therefore, I think you
    are probably a very confused person; you are simply unaware of how
    confused you really *are*. < 

Who is the one confused here?  _Illusions_ is a novel by R. Bach (not a
very good writer).  That you would consider it as non fiction is a bit
    strange, but certainly characteristic.

    
    >   The source of electrical excitation is the human body...or is it
    the soul as it exists within the body?  oh...so you only accept it if
    "everybody, not just the blessed few" can experience it... < 

Give me a break.  Is your body a Tesla coil?  You must have a horrible problem
with static cling.  And if one's body can act as a source of electrical
excitation, why is an external source needed for Kirlian photography?


    >   wow, that doesn't leave much room for personal strength and
    exceptional ability...so I guess you'll have to settle for being
    average, since, by your own rule, you cannot be exceptional. < 

I AM exceptional, as you would doubtless conclude upon meeting me.


    >   As far as I know, I am not a space alien.  However, I may or may
    not be, in a parallel existence.  < 

Yes, and you could be Tara the Elephant.  Or Koo Stark.  Or Mr. Rogers.
Or my dachshund.  Why not just claim to be EVERYONE and get it over with?


    >  To myself, I'm not an alien, because I'm always at home around me.
    I'm sure a lot of my thoughts seem alien to you, which could make me an
    alien in your reality. < 

You am what you am (to pervert a phrase from a one-eyed philosopher).  My
perception of you will not make you grow an extra inch or add another limb
to your body.  Either you are form space or you are not.

You may add CYOR to the hogwash bin.


    
    >   I enjoyed your level of frustration at being pinned down to define
    love.  The fact is, you know you can't really define it, except to say
    it's positive.  < 

You enjoyed it Meredith?  You *enjoyed* it?  Isn't that creating a negative
reality?

Asking me to define love is like asking me to define music.  The answer
could be anything and proves nothing.  If you think you have some answers
as to why and how crystals heal, please present them for examination.


John M.

RE: .104 (Topher)


    > Specifically what has been learned is that aspirin *somehow*
    stimulates the production of certain peptides (small proteins) which
    *somehow* regulate certain types of pain, tissue swelling and fever. < 

As I recall, the explanation entailed a lot more than that.  Anyone out there
have some more information?
    

    >...[aspirin's]  widespread use is supported by two "weak" basis:
    anecdotal and experiential evidence (i.e., "Try it, it knocked my
    headache right out") and arguing from authority (i.e., "Dr. So-and-so
    recommends it.").  < 

This is not only a gross oversimplification, it is untrue.  Aspirin works
on animals other than humans, so there is a lot more at work than anecdotal
evidence.  Aspirin is a very powerful medication!  Had it not been around
so long, it would be a prescription drug.



    >    Crystals -- Once again, John, your statements have the flavor of
    scientism rather than science.  < 

Dear Topher, you are as constant as the evening star!  I knew it was only
a matter of time before you started screaming "scientism!" again.


    >  Do you know of any carefully done controlled studies of the healing
    properties of crystals?  If so, cite them, give us a hint where we
    might find them, or describe them and we can deal with the evidence.  < 


As a matter of fact, I do.  I just don't remember where I read it!  If I
come across the article, you can expect to find it here.



    >  As it stands we have you dogmatically asserting that *if* such an
    experiment were to be performed than it *would* fail -- all hail
    currently accepted scientific models as they are Truth.  The "Crystal
    People" (hey, I like that :-) present weak (experiential) evidence and
    you present dogma.  Neither is science but they're closer to it than
    you are.  < 


Says you.  I know that crystals don't have healing properties because I
know what crystals are and how they are formed.  Crystal "science" is at
best pseudoscience and at worst superstition.  We might as well be discussing
why the sea is boiling hot or whether pigs have wings.

    
John M.        

    Re .109 (John):
    
>                         -< The sun is made of butter >-

    ...If you restrict it to golden colors ... :-D
    
    >This is not only a gross oversimplification, it is untrue.  Aspirin works
    >on animals other than humans, so there is a lot more at work than anecdotal
    >evidence.
    
    Yes, but it works differently on abnimals other than humans.  If
    you give aspirin to cats [which I strongly recommend you do _not_],
    it will kill them.  [Okay, some people don't like cats, but ....]
    
>As a matter of fact, I do.  I just don't remember where I read it!  If I
>come across the article, you can expect to find it here.
    
    Pronably in _The Skeptical Inquirer_ . :-)
    
>Says you.  I know that crystals don't have healing properties because I
>know what crystals are and how they are formed.  Crystal "science" is at
>best pseudoscience and at worst superstition.
    
    You may well be right, but ...  it might be that certain lattice
    structures could cause effects that haven't been quantified yet.
     In the early days of radio, people found that galens crystals were
    somehow "sensitive" in some spots to radio waves.  A strange
    contraption called a "cat's whisker" (a spring-wound wire with a
    probe end) could be moved along the galena crystal until the
    experimenter found a "sensitive spot,"; at that point, the crystal
    could be used as a detector.  It wasn't until years later when
    Shockley, et al., developed the point-contact transistor at Bell
    Labs that the mechanism began to be understood.
    
    Actually, I like the idea of a double-blind experiment where dome
    folk are given real crystals and the others fakes.  That sort of
    an experiment would produce quantifiable results, if results that
    weren't completely conclusive.
    
>............................................We might as well be discussing
>why the sea is boiling hot or whether pigs have wings.
    
    Well, the sea is boiling hot at certain vents where there are fissures
    exposing magma.  A live-form was found near these at the sea bottonm
    that as I recall have been called something like "tube worms." 
    Pigs only have wings as pseudo buffalo wings.  I wouldn't bother
    to bring up this point except for the chocolate discussion elsewhere
    in this file on psychic stuff. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
          
        

    This note is starting to sound like the "SOAPBOX".
    
    Pat

    Oooooh, 455.111 - triple one's - I love it.
    
    As for the items which you specifically pointed out as being hogwash
    (and I knew you cared!! ;-)); as far as channeling goes, I used
    a Ouija board when I was an adolescent, but I have this weird ability
    which occasionally surfaces that allows me to move things without
    touching them, so, as far as I know, I controlled the device.  I
    currently accept the possibility that channeling is valid, but have
    no experience with which to back that claim, right now.  If I get
    some, I'll send it over via Entity Courier.  Hee, hee, hee.
    
    That's neat, that you met Shirley.  Do you know during what time
    frame she experienced the many things about which she now chooses
    to write?  I'm just curious as to whether or not she may have actually
    been going through some of those things at the time of your meeting.
    For you to have met her at such a time would indicate to me that
    you were (and have been, considering the people you contact in this
    file) magnetizing into your reality people of a more spiritual/
    metaphysical nature for a specific reason, whether or not you are
    consciously aware of such.  (I was a student of psychology; I have
    only a Bachelor of Arts in such, which doesn't even get one admitted
    to grad school in a lot of cases, but I did learn a lot, and one
    of the things we studied was sub/unconscious motivations.  I will
    explain, further, the idea of "magnetic reality" a little later).
    
    The person in the Colorado notesfile was specifically encountered
    by me in note 211.26, Fatal Flight in Denver; PHDVAX::FANELLI. Methinks
    you will be complimented.  Certainly not meant as insult.
    
    re; giving a test group fake crystals;  We could run the experiment
    that way, too.  I suggest we do one experiment that way, as well
    as doing yet another experiment with items not resembling crystals,
    such as waxed fruit and/or ballpoint pens.  I use "we" in the
    proverbial sense, here.  There are manmade crystals.  And, yes,
    the proper methodology would be that neither experimentors nor
    experimentees would know who got what.
    
    I read somewhere (and likewise, if I find it again, I'll quote it)
    that Einstein advocated the use of crystals; for what, I cannot
    remember.  I hope I can find it; I really do.  If someone else out
    there knows about what I am speaking, please feel free to add a
    response, or contact me, and I'll keep your name out of it, at your
    request.  Thanks.  As for the secret to time travel being woven
    into bikini briefs...is it the style of the weaving that indicates
    how time travel may be accomplished, or is it the size/shape of
    the brief, or that which it contains? ;-)  my imagination is making
    me smile...
    
    I wasn't *trying* to read your mind; however, if I was successful,
    please forgive me for doing so without your ego permission.  What
    I mean by limiting your reality is that you seem to wait for concrete
    proof before you believe (concrete, here, is using *your* definition
    of concrete, which may be different from other's definitions). 
    When you do this, you limit yourself to the Realm of Things Proven,
    rather than expanding to the Realm of Things, both Proven and Possible.
    
    Well, John, superstitious behavior was defined in psychology as
    such:  This goes to the Rats-Pressing-The-Bar Tests...sometimes,
    the rats who pressed the bars would get food; other times, they
    would not.   What was actually being studied in this case was
    extinction of behavior.  Scientists wanted to know if rats fed on
    a regular basis (every press, every 3rd press, etc) would continue
    the behavior of pressing a bar for the same period of time when
    food was no longer administered, as rats who were fed intermittently
    (no specific schedule).  The rats fed on no specific schedule exhibited
    the behavior of pressing the bar for a much longer period of time
    after food was stopped, than did the rats who got the regular feedings.
    It took a much longer time for their bar-pressing behavior to extinguish.
    Something happened that was a surprise.  Certain of the rats did
    odd things before pressing the bar in the intermittently-fed group.
    They would turn in circles, or jump; they seemed to exhibit this
    behavior because they thought it helped them to get the food.  The
    behavior and the outcome were coincidental, but the rats accepted
    it as part  of the food-getting ritual.  The belief in crystals
    is not superstitious.  I will give you some proof.  (OH BOY OH BOY!)
    As for belief in crystals being a subscription to a holdover from
    the Dark Ages...what works, works, no matter how long it's been
    in use...hey, if it's been in use that long, it must really work
    well.  The Dark Ages weren't totally dark.  They couldn't have been,
    or we'd've never come out of them.  Now.  In order for my acceptance
    of crystals as aids in healing to be proven to be other than
    superstitious behavior, I am going to have to show that crystals
    have properties which can be useful in healing.  (As I've said earlier,
    there may be a machine that is, as of yet, uninvented, that will
    show measurements that we cannot currently show.  However, I do
    have something to whet the appetite.)
    
    Energy.  OK, let's get specific.  Piezo-electricity.  When you squeeze
    a quartz crystal, Piezo-electricity is generated.  This is definitely
    measurable.  Most computer systems now use piezo-generated frequencies.
    If you can generate energy (electricity) by squeezing crystals and get
    differences in potential, then the possibility exists that, in a
    state of not-being-squeezed (aka, "normal"), the latent energy still
    exists in the matrix of the crystal.  It is possible that this energy
    can be tapped in other means or by other means for uses other than
    frequency generation.  Microwaves are frequency-controlled (ultrasound)
    and are used now in healing therapy.  It has been proven that, if
    an electrical current is applied to damaged tissues of the body,
    those tissues heal faster.
    
    When crystal miners in Arkansas are working in an open-pit mine,
    they often will use front-loaders earliy in the morning, before
    daylight, to find new deposits by watching for flashes of light
    when the blades break the crystals apart.  (Some good crystals are
    lost this way).  I have a friend who breaks down crystal clusters,
    who reports sparks or flashes of light, as in static electricity,
    when breaking them apart.  Sometimes, there is so much static energy
    that it holds the cluster together so tightly as to make it almost
    impossible to break them apart, no matter how much force is used
    or how many different cleavage lines are pursued.  And at other
    times, the light that is given off upon breaking down a cluster
    is a long flash; up to 3 seconds long.
    
    My assertion on antimony means nothing?  My assertion was simply
    an extension of your sarcasm.  You sarcastically stated that you
    could communicate with alien beings by looking at antimony.  I took
    the scientific standpoint and said that antimony may or may not
    have anything to do with communicating with alien beings.  It is
    scientifically accepted that beings from planets other than this
    one do exist.  *It is scientifically accepted.*  It is not
    scientifically accepted, however, that you have made a water lily
    that is sitting upon my head.  You don't even believe in the water
    lily.  You're just being sarcastic again.  So it *really* doesn't
    exist, not even in the ethers.  However, I must say, thank you for
    making it a water lily.  There are many less-pleasant things which
    you could have chosen.  Let's talk CYOR.  You've taken it to the
    extent to which charlatains take channeling, crystal-gazing, and
    all the other potential realities that you deny.  Notice I said
    *to the extent to which CHARLATAINS take <name your favorite object-
    of-that-preposition>*.
    
    We all know that there are waves; sound waves, thought waves
    (Scientists have measured brain waves, so this shouldn't be too
    hard for you to accept); we all know that certain things emit energy
    and certain things receive energy (here, I am talking about
    scientifically proven things, like the waves generated by a television
    transmitter that are received by a television set); we all know
    the generally accepted definition of grass, trees, flowers, dirt,
    mud, streams, lakes, oceans, wind, clouds, can openers, ballpoint
    pens, et cetera, ad infinitum.  But no two of us perceive those
    things in the same way.  No two of us see colors in the same way
    (some people are color-blind and have great difficulty distinguishing
    the difference between certain colors), but we do have a generally
    accepted definition of what is green, what is red, et cetera.  In
    that sense, we share a common base for our reality.  But no two
    people perceive that reality in the same way, just as no two snowflakes
    are alike.  What is meant by "Creating Your Own Reality" is that
    you are free to alter your perceptions of the commonly-accepted
    reality base.  Your perception still falls within the general category
    of definition, but you have changed it, hopefully to a more beneficial
    viewpoint.  People who want to take charge of their realities, or
    create their own realities, are people who want to improve their
    lives; who want to feel better about life.  I can get up every morning
    and mutter ten or twenty times that it's a rotten day because I
    have to come in and do a job I find boring, or I can perceive that
    day in a totally different light and say that I am being a productive
    member of society, that I am able to feed and clothe myself, so
    what I am doing is good.  The antagonists of the create-your-own-
    reality viewpoint have, more often than not, during discussions with
    me, said, "Oh, so I'm going to create a reality where murder is
    all right."  Hold on thar, Baba Louie!!  The general reality base
    would issue that murder is not desirable, and is, in fact, a very
    negative thing.  However, say that A. is a known-murderer, and has
    killed each of B.'s children, and it is known that A. is now posing
    the same threat to the children of C., and has been seen preparing
    the same weapons used on B.'s children.  B. murders A.  Murder is
    still a negative thing, but in this particular piece of reality,
    B. has prevented A. from murdering the children of C.  It is less
    negative, and even understandable.  Murder can be accepted, depending
    upon circumstance.  Murders such as A. was committing, are *not*
    acceptable.  If A.'s reality constitutes that children are a negative
    thing, but the general reality base constitutes that children are
    necessary for the continuance of the species, and the general reality
    base constitutes that the continuance of the species is a good thing,
    then A. is way out-of-line with the general reality base, and is,
    therefore, not *altering* reality but is *removed from* reality,
    and A. should be put in a place where he can be taught what the
    general reality base is, and removed from a place where his absence
    of the concept of reality poses a threat to the lives (essential
    reality) of others. Crystals have some type of energy.  In my
    perception, that energy can be channeled to heal.  Others share
    that perception.  It works for us.  It adds a positive perception
    to the reality that crystals have some type of energy.  It is not
    removed from the reality base.
    
    We were all created from a similar energy.  (General reality base.)
    Therefore, we are all similar.  (That's how I am everybody, and
    everybody is me; even you.)  But we see things differently; our
    bodies are standard deviations from the similar energy (perceptions
    of the general reality base).

    One last thing - the concept of magnetic reality.  I cannot, at
    the present time, recall if it was Jung or WHO! practiced this concept,
    but here it is;  The basic law is, you attract into your reality,
    that which you need.  The magnetic part comes from this;  When you
    are about 7 years old, you form your "ego"; that which you readily
    recognize as part of you, versus that which you reject and say is
    not a part of you.  That which you reject becomes a part of your
    subconscious or unconscious mind; from that great general reality
    base comes the concept that we each contain all qualities to one
    extent or another, and to reject certain qualities is to reject
    part of yourself, and so you *project* that on to other people,
    and they *reflect* that for you.  You attracted quite a metaphysical
    lady into your life when you met Shirley.  Was it like-attracting-
    like, or was it your projection of her qualities that made her come
    into your life?  (You don't have to answer that.)
    
    We're all average.  And...we're all exceptional.
    Have a lovely weekend.  (I mean that! ;-))
    
    Meredith

    Drat...when I started 455.112, it was *going* to be 455.111.  Oh
    well.  Guess I needed the 9 more than the 8??

    
    Let's see.......words mentioned in the heretofore 'conversations':
    
    Bikini briefs, waxed fruit, magnetism, crystals, Tesla coils, proven
    life forms not resident on Earth, Shirley, etc.
    
    Picking up where we left off the last time - John wears Fruit-Of-The
    Loom's, he's attracting strange and unusual things due to his magnetic
    personality (not the least of which is Meredith, who has anything
    but a static personality and no doubt a receptor of alien thoughts 
    and alien songs such as "Somewhere Over The Rainbow...In My Crystal"
    because of her ability to perform crystal channelling - something even 
    Shirley would be proud of).
                      
    Can someone take it from here?  (;^)
    
    Cindy                                                 
    
    PS. If there are any coconut creme pies left after the fight, please
        send them my way.....gently if you please.

    Re .112 (Meredith):
    
    I've got to throw an oar in here.  Please take all this in a friendly
    fashion, 'cause it's meant that way.
    
    > .................  There are manmade crystals.  And, yes,
    >the proper methodology would be that neither experimentors nor
    >experimentees would know who got what. 
    
    A _manmade_ crystal wouldn't help.  A crystal has a lattice structure,
    whether "natural" or "manufactured."  What you'd have to do would
    be to take something without a lattice structure (say, a piece of
    glass or plastic) and form it so that it looked like the crystal
    you would use otherwise.
    
    >As for belief in crystals being a subscription to a holdover from
    >the Dark Ages...what works, works, no matter how long it's been
    >in use...hey, if it's been in use that long, it must really work
    >well.  The Dark Ages weren't totally dark.  They couldn't have been,
    >or we'd've never come out of them. 
    
    "Take the stone which is called Iris, and it is white like to a
    Christall, fore-squate or having horns.  If this stone be put in
    the beames of the sunne, by turning back it maketh a rain boew soone
    to appeare on the wall." -- Alburtus Magnus.  A little more
    persistence, and he'd have invented spectroscopy.  But he didn't
    heal with crystals.
    
    >Energy.  OK, let's get specific.  Piezo-electricity.  When you squeeze
    >a quartz crystal, Piezo-electricity is generated.  This is definitely
    >measurable.  
    
    You have to apply pressure along the proper axis.
    
    >If you can generate energy (electricity) by squeezing crystals and get
    >differences in potential, then the possibility exists that, in a
    >state of not-being-squeezed (aka, "normal"), the latent energy still
    >exists in the matrix of the crystal.
    
    Not quite that simple.  That's like saying that if you can generate
    electricity by cranking a hand generator, the possibility exists
    that latent energy exists in the generator when nobody's cranking
    it.  In both cases, it's what "you" do that supplies the energy.
    A piezoeleztric or electrodynamic generator merely transforms the
    energy being applied to it to electricity, with the inevitable heat
    losses.   In neither case is the operator milking it of energy;
    in fact, if anything, the reverse is taking place: the generator
    is "taking" energy from the operator.
    
    >When crystal miners in Arkansas are working in an open-pit mine,
    >they often will use front-loaders earliy in the morning, before
    >daylight, to find new deposits by watching for flashes of light
    >when the blades break the crystals apart.
    
    Sure.  The mechanical stress in the breaking _generates_ energy.
    Take a roll of adhesive tape into a closet and pull out some tape.
     You should be able to see a glow where the adhesive pulls away
    from the next layer of tape, if the closet's pitch black.  The energy
    that _causes_ the breakage and hence the momentary glow is from
    the mechanical act of your pulling.  [Bad example, in a way, because
    adhesive tape is used to help promote healing. :-D]   Adhesive tape
    doesn't have a lattice structure.
    
    >.......................................................... It is
    >scientifically accepted that beings from planets other than this
    >one do exist.  *It is scientifically accepted.*      
    
    I think it's scientifically accepted that they _can_ exist; that
    they _do_ is still open to question.
    
    >..................................................... When you
    >are about 7 years old, you form your "ego"; that which you readily
    >recognize as part of you, versus that which you reject and say is
    >not a part of you.  ...
    
    I can't and wouldn't speak for anybody else, but my memories go
    _way_ back (to when I was being potty trained), and I differentiated
    between what was me and what wasn't as far back as I can remember.
    [And to short-circuit the wisecracks, I was potty-trained at an
    early age.  I can certainly remember things that happened when I
    was three years old, and I never failed to make the distinction
    between me and Everything Else.]
    
    Anyway, I am _not_ saying that crystals might not have a healing
    property.  My mind is quite open on that.  However, if they do,
    it's by a yet unexplained mechanism.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    	I found it interesting that some Native Americans have used
    "crystal rattles" for healing purposes.   A gourd is filled with
    Quartz, and rattled.    In this case, there would be a mechanical
    input of energy, and although the crystals aren't visible inside
    the gourd, I would imagine they are doing some flashing and
    sparking in there.
    
    	In one of Lynn Andrew's books a crystal rattle was used,
    and she found that the sound of it was very mind altering.
    It must also have been emitting some electromagnetic waves
    along with the sound though.
    
    	Alan.

    Hey STeve, i liked the numbers in your note - note 88, written 1-22-88,
    number 115 written at 1555. tee hee!
    
    re; manmade crystals - Yeah, but lattice structure or not, one is
    made by the Earth's pressure (made by energy of the Earth) and the
    other is made by man.  I don't really know how the man-made ones
    *are* made.  Do you, and if so, can you please Enlighten me!!
    
    re; the proper axis - OK.  Sounds good.  But what if a human hand
    squeezes a coke bottle.  The same p. electricity doesn't come off.
    
    
    I'm taking the whole thing in a friendly fashion, really; I am getting
    more out of this topic of conversation than I thought possible when
    I first read it all.  I enjoy the challenge to my mind.  I perceive
    no personal insult from anyone to myself, and I believe the reverse
    is also true.  I loved Cindy's note.  The difference between this
    topic and SOAPBOX is that we're not calling each other names.  We
    address the subject, not the person, if you know what I mean.
    
    I think I used my quota of words today, because I'm running out...
    
    Ms. Eye Strain

    Re .117 (Meredith):
    
    >re; manmade crystals - Yeah, but lattice structure or not, one is
    >made by the Earth's pressure (made by energy of the Earth) and the
    >other is made by man.  I don't really know how the man-made ones
    >*are* made. 
    
    Varies with the crystal: some need high pressures (e.g., artificial
    diamonds), others don't.  Ruby laser rods are artificially produced
    because it ensures the proper qualities for best lasing.  Whether
    manmade or natural, the basic structure is the same, though some
    manmade crystals are "purer" than their natural brethren because
    of the control that can be put into the process.  [A simple crystal
    you can grow is rock candy, but that's organic.]
               
    >re; the proper axis - OK.  Sounds good.  But what if a human hand
    >squeezes a coke bottle.  The same p. electricity doesn't come off.
          
    That's because several things.  The simplest of them is that glass
    or plastic aren't crystalline.  Squeezing a quart Coke bottle isn't
    the same thing as squeezing quartz [sorry; couldn't resist].  Also,
    not all crystals have piezoelectric properties, just as not all
    metals have ferromagnetic properties.  It happens quartz is pretty
    good this way, there are better (I don't have my _Chemical Engineers'
    Handbook_ handy).  Quartz is also very good as a resonator and is
    used in frequency generators as a standard reference; ask old-time
    radio hams.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Just as I was wondering how to answer that flippin' TOME you wrote, Steve
Kallis came to my rescue and brought up most of the points I was going to
(Thanks, Steve!  You must be a hardware type as well).

RE: Shirley

No, my dear Meredith, I did NOT "create" the reality of meeting her.  My
brother brought me to the party and she happened to be there (this was in 1981
or 82).  Shirley would have been there whether or not I was.  Anyway, if I
wanted to attract spiritual people, I'd go to a wing-ding with the Pope.


Have I left anything unaddressed?  If so, let me know.

Don't you just love short replies?


John M. 

    
    Re. Homemade crystals
    
    I received a 'Crystal Growing Kit' as a Xmas gift, and I recall
    that there was quite a bit of information on how crystals were
    manufactured in space (though it was more of a NASA advertisement
    than not).  
    
    If you're interested in where the kit came from, mail me directly
    and I'll ask the person who gave it to me.
    
    Cindy

    Hey, this stuff may be long but it's a blast!  J and M could star in
    a "modern" version of an ol' "Tracy and Hepburn" movie!! :-)
    
    
    /Jon

    RE: .121 (Jon)  Your name is missing a letter.  Where the "h" is
    it?
    
    I'd say this topic is more like The Wizard of OZ: the ULTIMATE
    CYOR flick.
                      
    

    Gee, I dunno.  It's been missing since I was born.
    
    /Jon

    Reply to .122, John Mitchell,
    
    I think your dumping a little to heavily on CYOR. After all, at the
    human level the mechanics do work.  It seems to be a matter of degree.
    Wanna' duke it out? B^) "Step away from that thar bar, fella." B^)

re: .118    

>    because it ensures the proper qualities for best lasing.  Whether

Yikes!  Is that a word??---------------------------------^
(i thought laser was an acronym, to begin with)
;-)

    Re .125:
    
    Yes, <sigh> "lasing" is a word.  Nonwithstanding that "laser" started
    out as an acronym, several dictionaries have entered the verb, "to
    lase," meaning to output coherent light from a laser.
    
    I don't like it any more than you do, but there it is.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .125,.126
    
    Sometimes when an acronym is easily pronounceable it becomes "just
    a word" and starts getting the usual modifications.  Note that you
    didn't hesitate to spell it "laser" rather than its original spelling
    "LASER" (the capitols indicating its status as an acronym).
    
    Some other examples which occur to me off the top of my head are
    "radar" (RAdio Detecting And Ranging), "scuba" (Self Contained
    Underwater Breathing Apparatus) and possibly "Mafia" (this is
    disputed, the origin of the word is unknown but several of the more
    plausible hypotheses are Italian acronyms).  (Hmm, just noticed
    that "Mafia" doesn't appear in the old red paperback American
    Heritage Dictionary; do I smell some "political" pressure?).
    
                           Topher

    Regarding the ego; The ego allegedly *completes* its formation at 
    age 7, which is not to say that parts of it do not exist prior to that.
    
    re:  Shirley again (although I speak in a broader sense);  There
    are some schools of thought that teach that we are, each and every
    one of us, responsible for what happens in our lives.  Of course,
    this school of thought gives very little creedence to "chance
    happenings".  This school of thought would make it real that you
    magnetized Shirley into your reality; that you were destined to
    meet her because you needed whatever it was she brought to you in
    that meeting; i.e., you, consciously or subconsciously, put out
    the magnetizing force which draws whatever happens, in toward yourself,
    because you need the lesson(s) which it brings.
    
    BTW, John, at the Rocky Mountain DEJAVU Noter's Party, we all joined
    hands in honor of you at 5:45 your time (this was Friday).  We're
    glad you're here. ;-) Seriously, we are! (But I am smiling as I
    type this.  I can't help it.  We used your name, "John", as our
    mantra.  Too bad there's 50 John Mitchell's in the Seattle phone
    book, or you'd've heard from us the traditional Earth-plane way,
    too!
    
    Meredith

    re .129 (Meredith):
    
    >Regarding the ego; The ego allegedly *completes* its formation at 
    >age 7, which is not to say that parts of it do not exist prior to that.
     
    I don't know who taught you that, but I can assure you that at least
    in my case, _my_ ego was firmly established before age 3.  Take
    my word for it; I was there.  My early-days difficulties were primarily
    involved in using the same terms as everyone else (ants were "mickeys"
    to me, probably because of an overexposure to the name "Mickey
    Mouse," for instance).  But I sure could differentiate between Within
    and Without!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I started out (in this life, at least) as a geologist and took several
    courses in mineralogy. The mineralogy lab had many large crystals
    of all kinds along the walls, plus dozens and dozens of smaller
    ones. The lab instructor spent most of his day in this environment.
    
    If there were any energy emanating or radiating from all these crystals
    that should have been a pretty lively class. But believe me, it had
    not the slightest discernible effect on any of the students. And
    the lab instructor was as lively as a snail crawling through molasses
    in the middle of winter.                            
    
    Re: Piezoelectricity. 
    
    That's the kind of electricity used to bake pizza. One piezo =
    the amount of electricity needed to cook a standard 12-inch pepperoni
    pizza. 
     
    OPPS! Sorry! Seriously, the piezoelectrical properties of crystals 
    are what make much of the electronic industry possible. The earliest
    radios were called crystal sets. The term "semiconductor" refers
    to the crystal's piezoelctrical nature.
          
    -bs

    Re .131 (Bruce):
    
    >If there were any energy emanating or radiating from all these crystals
    >that should have been a pretty lively class. But believe me, it had
    >not the slightest discernible effect on any of the students.
    
    If you believe in _inherent_ energy.  It could be argued that crystals
    could be used to help direct/focus/collimate an external -- and
    probably nonelectromagnetic -- energy form.  My mind's open on this.
    It's as easy to say, "Around a drugstore, there are dozens to hundreds
    of flashlight batteries...."  It's not only the resources; it's
    hooking them up correctly.  
    
    >OPPS! Sorry! Seriously, the piezoelectrical properties of crystals 
    >are what make much of the electronic industry possible. 
    
    Only in terms of helping then oscillate.
    
    > .................................................  The earliest
    >radios were called crystal sets. The term "semiconductor" refers
    >to the crystal's piezoelctrical nature.
    
    I think you may be in error here.  The "crystal" of a crystal set,
    a lead-sulpher combination called galena, is a primitive form of
    semiconductor, but I don't believe it's piezoelectric.  A semiconductor
    is a crystalloid structure wherein some atoms are replaced with
    others whose electron shells are richer (N material) or more deficient
    (P material) in electrons than the normal atoms.  Piezoelectricity, far as
    I know, doesn't enter into the mechanism.  
    
    Piezoelectric crystals are used in some phonograph pickups to transform
    the movements of the stylus to electrical energy, and in some lighters,
    where the piezopelectric spark can be used to ignite gas (I have
    one on our propane cooker on the patio). 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .129 (Meredith)

>  This school of thought would make it real that you
    magnetized Shirley into your reality; that you were destined to
    meet her because you needed whatever it was she brought to you in
    that meeting;  <

I suppose that explains my tripping and falling into Walter Cronkite at the
same party ("Thank you, sir.  I materialized you here to stop my fall").  I
don't remember anything Shirley said, and I'm sure she doesn't remember who the
heck I am, so whatever "lessons" were learned could not have been worth much.
Recall too that she and I were not the only ones there!  I suppose everyone
created everyone else being there.  See how complex this gets? 

Of course CYOR works to some extent; that is, we all have some degree of
control over what happens to us.  But it is the apex of arrogance to assume
that we control *everything* that happens.  That's God's job.


>   BTW, John, at the Rocky Mountain DEJAVU Noter's Party, we all joined
    hands in honor of you at 5:45 your time (this was Friday).  We're
    glad you're here. ;-) Seriously, we are! (But I am smiling as I
    type this.  I can't help it.  We used your name, "John", as our
    mantra.  <

Wish I could have joined y'all at your "Rocky Mountain Cloister."  ;-)

But do be more careful with your mantras; you might have materialized a
toilet!


RE: .131 (Bruce)

> lively as a snail crawling through molasses <


 "Escargoo?"

    
    JOhn M.

RE: .131,.132
    
    A semiconductor is just what it sounds like, it is a substance whose
    properties are roughly midway between a "real" conductor and a
    "real" insulator.  Many semiconductors have the useful property
    that very small quantities of contaminants (dopants) change their
    electrical properties radically.
    
    A piezoelectric material is one which when squeezed in the proper
    direction converts some of the energy which would otherwise deform
    it into a bulk separation of charges: i.e., it converts the pressure
    into electrical energy.  Conversely, an electrical difference applied
    across it in the proper way will cause a change in its shape: this
    is taken advantage of in, e.g., crystal earphones.  A deformation will
    result in a voltage, which will result in a (further) small deformation
    will result in a further (even smaller) voltage, etc, ad infinitum
    to convergence (like a stick placed in the ocean displacing water;
    submerging the stick further, displacing more ocean ...).  If the
    voltage is applied at just the right frequency for that crystal the
    alternating pressure/voltage waves result in a resonance which can
    be used to tune a circuit (e.g., an electronic clock or a radio
    circuit).
    
    Galena is a good piezoelectic material.
    
    So much for what I am pretty sure of.
    
    Here is some stuff which I at best half-remember from when I was
    building crystal sets and hence was reading about piezoelectricity:
    I think that semiconduction is a precondition for piezoelectric
    properties (but not vice versa).  This makes sense since too good
    a conductor would be unable to maintain the separation of charges
    (it would short itself out, so to speak) and to good an insulator
    would make bulk movement of the charges too hard.  I also seem to
    remember that the rectifying properties of a "cat's whisker" is somehow
    a property of a piezoelectric effect rather than a doped semiconductor
    effect, though I'll be d***ed if I remember how.  A semiconductor
    diode requires two oppositely doped semiconductor regions rather
    than a semiconductor in contact with a conductor.  Maybe (wild
    speculation time) the pressure of the whisker piezoelectrically
    creates a small P region inside a generally N crystal, or vice
    versa?  Or maybe the sweet spot for the contact point (I remember
    hunting for sweet spots on razor-blade radios, but I don't remember
    that that was necessary for a crystal radio) is a naturally occuring
    area of opposite polarity from the bulk (contradicting my piezo-
    rather than semiconductor memory).
    
    					Topher

    RE: .134 (Topher)
    
    >hunting for sweet spots on razor-blade radios, 
    
    
    "Razor-blade radios?"
    
    
    John M.

    Someone has the following as a personal name over in the SKIING
    conference, and it seems to be the time and the place to put it
    in here.....
    
    		"This conversation is going downhill."
                
    *<8*)||  

    re: a few notes back:
      
      What is "true" for data processing is also analogously true
    for crystals:  "garbage in, garbage out..."  meaning that a crystal
    can only heal if it is a healing crystal.  If it is filled with
    a sourpuss instructor's personna, then that is what will be amplified
    or "expressed."
     
      As for egos, I disagree with all of you but the topic is one I
    have been working on presenting for a couple of months and am not
    yet finished so I will wait to respond more fully at which time
    I am finished.
      
      As for creating your own reality, Meredith, what you described
    is more or less taken to be the figurative creation of the reality
    in which you reside.  Obviously, most people will probably accept
    that one.  What is more difficult to accept (also obviously) is
    the LITERAL creation of your own reality.  I spent a lot of time
    in note 358 adding justification to that one so I will not repeat
    myself here.  For *ME*, however, I am completely convinced that
    the literal creation of my reality is "real."
                                                             
    
    Frederick
    

    Re nm.135 (John):
    
    >"Razor-blade radios?"
    
    
    Yes.  Wierd as it sounds, you can find, with a cat's whisker probe,
    areas of rectification on a razor blade (the old Gilette blue blades
    were fairly good for this).  It was apparently a local condition,
    not unlike a region of a point-contact transistor or diode.  If
    you don't take very localized chemical changes on the surface of
    the razor blade into account, a razor-blade radio-wave rectifier
    is every bit as strange sounding as sharpening razor blades by putting
    them inside pyramids.  Not metaphysical; transphysical, I guess.
    :-)
    
    The razor blade exactly replaced a galena crystal in a crystal-set
    arrangement.  The rest, including long antenna, fine-wire-wrapped-
    around-an-oatmeal-box, pipe ground, etc., remained the same.
    
    I was unaware that galena was a good piezoelectric material, BTW;
    all the crystals of the substance I ever saw were mounted such that
    doing piezoelectric stunts witrh them would have been difficult.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    >Wish I could have joined y'all at your "Rocky Mountain Cloister."  ;-)

    >But do be more careful with your mantras; you might have materialized a
    >toilet! 

    Wouldn't have been the worst thing we could have materialized -
    after all, many people there were drinking beer.... :^)
    
    Actually, the most likely thing for me to have materialized from
    that would have been hiccups - from uncontrollable laughter (almost
    happened) :^).
    
    Elizabeth

    RE: .138
    
    Steve has it.  The book I found this in when I was a kid claimed
    that some crystals of iron oxide (rust) had the necessary properties.
    A noticeably rusted blade wouldn't work, however: the crystals get
    distorted and are the wrong size.  A sweet spot is simply a small
    spec of rust.  In the set I built (it really did work!) I used a
    twisted safety pin as the cats whisker.
    
    				Topher

    
    Getting back to the main topic.....
    
    In my opinion (oh-oh),  there is nothing wrong at all with New-age
    thinking, but..... there is something that could develope into
    something not constructive...
    
    One of the "big" New-age ideas is that everyone is part of God,
    that I am directly connected to God.  I agree whole-heartedly with this,
    but a person should be careful when one gets into the mind-frame of "what
    God can do for me" and neglects the other part of this, i.e. "what I
    can do for God".  Remember everybody, it's a two-way street... 
    If one concentrates entirely on "what God can do for me", you will
    be thrown out of balance and therefore will loose the harmony/balance you
    have obtained from becoming aware of your connection with God (or the
    God energy).  By becoming aware of this two-way connection and working
    with this two-way connection, you will increase the cyclic energy flow,
    thus reaping more benefits with the more energy you put out....
    
    "The more you do for God, the more God will do for you ...".
    
    "An energy for energy exchange...".
    
    Linda

    I've been thinking for *days* about what is the best way to say
    what I want to say in here regarding CYOR.  (Acronyms are becoming
    extremely contagious.)  I wrote out one reply; it was too long and
    didn't sound right, so I didn't add it to the conference.
    
    Yeah, CYOR gets awfully complicated, but therein, lies learning.
    Your personal magnet is working, right along with everyone else's.
    Everyone who's in a certain situation is there for his or her own
    reason, and has his or her own perception of what is going on (which
    could be defined as "the perceived reality of the situation").
    
    I read something the other day that said, basically, that, as we
    learn about the things on the outside, we learn more about the inside.
    The things we learn correspond with what is inside of us, and,
    therefore, make us more aware of what is inside of us.  So, I guess
    one possible idea that could be surmised, if you consider the above
    to be true, or even plausible, is that you bring into your reality,
    that which you would like to, or most need to, learn about yourself,
    or you bring into your reality, something from which you can learn,
    if you take the time to think about it.
    
    Meredith

    Think not my magic wonders wrought by aid
    Of Stygian angels summoned up from hell;
    Scorned and accursed be those who have essay'd
    Her gloomy Dives and Afrites to compel.
    But by perception of the secret powers
    Of Mineral springs, in Nature's inmost cell,
    Of herbs in certain of her greenest bowers,
    And of the moving stars o'er mountain-tops and towers.
    
    Wiffen's "Translation of Tasso", Canto xiv.xliii
    *********************************************************************
    After hearing both within the last week, a stinging critique of
    Christianity from a member of the Wiccan, and a self-assured
    denunciation of all things New Age from a fundamentalist Christian
    (neither in the Notes files), and defending both the Christianity
    against the Wiccan, and New Age against the fundamentalist, I find
    myself again utterly alone in my beliefs, save for a few close people
    who may be destined to teach many more. Below I have typed an excerpt
    from the book "Zanoni", written by Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, with
    footnotes from Paul M. Allen.
    
    We join Clarence Glyndon, a Neophyte Englishman, and Zanoni, the
    ageless Mystic, as Clarence castigates Zanoni for introducing him
    to the brotherhood. Clarence, recklessly, has ignored both the advice
    of his inner guide, and the instructions of his teacher, and is
    only now escaping from the muck he got himself into. 
    ******************************************************************
    Zanoni is replying to Glyndon's accusation that he drew Glyndon
    into the studies.
    "Thou errest!-the desires were in thee; and whether in one direction
    or the other, would have forced their way! Man! Thou askest me the
    enigma of thy fate and my own! Look around all being, is there not
    mystery everywhere? Can thine eye trace the ripening of the grain
    beneath the earth? In the moral and the physical world alike, lie
    dark portents, far more wondrous than the powers thou wouldst ascribe
    to me!
    "Dost thou disown those powers? Dost thou confess thyself an imposter?
    Or wilt thou dare to tell me that thou art indeed sold to the Evil
    One?-a magician, whose familiar has haunted me night and day!
    "It matters not what I am", returned Zanoni; "it matters only whether
    I can aid thee to exorcise thy dismal phantom, and return once more
    the the wholesome air of this common life. Something, however, will
    I tell thee, not to vindicate myself, but the Heaven and Nature
    that thy doubts malign."
     Zanoni paused a moment, and resumed, with a slight smile:
      "In thy younger days thou hast doubtless read with delight the
    great Christian poet, whose muse, like the morning it celebrated,
    came to earth "crowned with flowers culled in Paradise" (Tasso DW).
    No spirit was more imbued with the knightly superstitions of the
    time; and surely the Poet of Jerusalem hath sufficiently, to satisfy
    even the Inquisitor he consulted, execrated all the practioners
    of the unlawfull spells invoked-
                   Per isforzar Cojcito o Flegetonte*
                  *To constrain Cocytus or Phlegethon
    But in his sorrows and his wrongs-in the prison of his madhouse,
    know you not that Tasso himself found his solace, his escape, in
    the recognition of a holy and spiritual Theurgia-of a magic that
    could summon the Angel, or the Good Genius, not the Fiend? And do
    you not remember, how he, deeply versed as he was, for his age,
    in the mysteries of the nobler Platonism, which hints at the secrets
    of all the starry brotherhoods, from the Chalsdaean to the later
    Rosicrucian, discriminates, in his lovely verse, between the black
    art of Ismeno, and the glorious lore of the Enchanter who counsels
    and guides upon their errand the Champions of the Holy Land? *His*,
    not the charms wrought by the aid of the Stygian rebels: but the
    perception of the secret powers of the fountain and the herb - the
    Arcana of the unknown nature and the various motions of the stars.
    His, the holy haunts of Lebanon and Carmel-beneath his feet he saw
    the clouds, the snows, the hues of Iris, the generations of the
    rains and dews. Did the Christian hermit who converted the Enchanter
    (no fabulous being, but the type of all spirit that would aspire
    through Nature up to God), command him to lay aside these sublime
    studies? "Le solite arte e l'uso mio?" No! But to cherish and direct
    them to worthy ends. And in this grand conception of the poet lies
    the secret of the true Theurgia, which startles your ignorance in
    a more learned day with puerile apprehensions, and the nightmare
    of a sick man's dreams."
     Again Zanoni paused, and again resumed.
    "In ages far remote-of a civilization far different from that which
    now merges the individual in the state, there existed men of ardent
    minds, and an intense desire of knowledge. In the mighty and solemn
    kingdoms in which they dwelt, there were no turbulent and earthly
    channels to work off the fever of their minds. Set in the antique
    mould of castes through which no intellect could pierce, no valor
    could force its way, the thirst for wisdom, alone, reigned in the
    hearts of those who received its study as a heritage from sire to
    son. Hence, even in your imperfect records of the progress of human
    knowledge, you find that, in the earliest ages, Philosophy descended
    not to the business and homes of men. It dwelt amidst the wonders
    of the loftier creation; it sought to analyse the formation of
    matter-the essentials of the prevailing soul; to read the mysteries
    of the starry orbs; to dive into those depths of Nature in which
    Zoroaster is said, by the schoolmen, first to have discovered the
    arts which your ignorant classes under the name of magic. In such
    an age, then, arose some men, who, amidst the vanities and delusions
    of their class, imagined that they detected gleams of a brighter
    and steadier lore. They fancied an affinity existing amongst all
    works of Nature, and that in the lowliest lay the secret attraction
    that might conduct them upwards to the loftiest.* 
    *Footnote: Agreeably, it would seem to the notion of Iamblichus
    and Plotinus, that the universe is an animal; so that there is sympathy
    and communication between one part and the other; in the smallest
    part may be the subtlest nerve. And hence the universal magnetism
    of Nature. But man contemplates the universe as an animalcule would
    an elephant. The animalcule, seeing barely the tip of the hoof,
    would be incapable of comprehending that the trunk belonged to the
    same creature-that the effect produced upon one extremity would
    be felt in an instant by the other. End footnote.
    Centuries passed, and lives were wasted in these discoveries.......
    ...At last from this dimness upon some eyes the light broke; but
    think not, young visionary, that to those who nursed unholy thoughts,
    over whom the Origin of Evil held a sway, that dawning was vouchsafed.
    It could be given then, as to now, only to the purest ecstasies
    of imagination and intellect, undistracted by the cares of a vulgar
    life, or the appetites of the common clay. Far from descending to
    the assistance of a fiend, theirs was but the august ambition to
    approach nearer to the Fount of Good; the more they emancipated
    themselves from this limbo of the planets, the more they were
    penetrated by the splendour and beneficence of God. And if they
    sought, and at last discovered, how to the eye of the Spirit all
    the subtler modifications of being, and of matter might be made
    apparent; if they discovered how, for the wings of the Spirit,
    all space might be annihilated; and while the body stood heavy and
    solid here, as a deserted tomb, the freed *Idea* might wander from
    star to star; if such discoveries became in truth their own, the
    sublimest luxury of their knowledge was but this-to wonder, to
    venerate, and adore! .....think you that this life could teach them
    other desire than to yearn the more for the Immortal, and to fit
    their intellect the better for the higher being to which they might,
    when Time and Death exist no longer, be transfered?  Away with your
    gloomy fantasies of sorcerer and demon! - the soul can aspire only
    to the light; ...
    *********************************************************************
    More tomorrow; there's one more passage I wish to include here.
    
    Doug
     

    Good, we'll be waiting for it.

    ZANONI extract continued and ended
    
    This address was so different from what Glyndon had anticipated,
    that he remained for some moments speechless, and at length faltered
    out:
    "But why, then, to me-"
    "Why", added Zanoni, "why to thee have been only the penance and
    the terror-the Threshold and the Phantom? Vain man! Look to the
    commonest elements of the common learning. Can every tyro at his
    mere wish and will become the master? -can the student, when he
    has bought his "Euclid", become a Newton?-can the youth whom the
    muses haunt, say, 'I will equal Homer?' -yea, can yon pale tyrant,
    (Robespierre DW), with all the parchment-laws of a hundred system
    shapers, and the pikes of his dauntless multitude, carve, at his
    will, a constitution not more vicious than the one which the madness
    of a mob could overthrow? When, in that far time to which I have
    referred, the student aspired to the heights to which thou wouldst
    have sprung at a single bound, he was trained from his very cradle
    to the career he was to run. The internal and the outward nature
    were made clear to his eyes, year after year, as they opened on
    the day. He was not admitted to the practical initiation till not
    one earthly wish chained that sublimest faculty which you call the
    *imagination*, one carnal desire clouded the penetrative essence
    that you call the *intellect*.......As with my youth, so with Menjour's
    age; he will tell you, that life to him is but a power to examine;
    and not till he has exhausted all the marvels which the Creator
    has sown on earth, would he desire new habitations for the renewed
    Spirit to explore. We are the types of the two essences of what
    is imperishable-'ART that enjoys, and SCIENCE that contemplates!'
    And now, that thou mayst be contented that the secrets are not
    vouchsafed to thee, learn that so utterly must the idea detach itself
    from what makes up the occupation and excitement of men, so must
    it be void of whatever would covet, or love or hate; that for the
    ambitious man, for the lover, the hater, the power avails not."
    ********************************************************************
    I would qualify what Zanoni referred to as love, as the selfish,
    possesive type of love, rather than the unconditional, much *higher*
    form of love, that radiates from God, and consequently from the
    Christ-spirit within man (a.k.a., very roughly, conscience, see
    also note 592.16), when we allow that part of ourselves, to be predominant.
    
    DW
                

    This note contains explanations and commentaries by people other
    than the author of Zanoni, all of whom are unknown and long dead (the book
    was written in the mid 1800s).  My apologies for the fact that some
    if it may be difficult to understand without having read the book,
    but there is enough here that you don't have to read the book to
    comprehend, that I feel it worthy of an entry in DEJAVU. All emphasis
    and capitalization, is that of the author.
    
    Doug
    ************************************************************************
    The author of Zanoni gives, then, no key to mysteries, be they trivial
    or important, which may be found in the secret chambers by those
    who lift the tapestry from the wall: but out of the many solutions
    of the main enigma-if enigma, indeed, there be-...He leaves it to
    the reader to agree with, or dissent from, the explanation. "A hundred
    men", says the old Platonist, "may read the book by the help of
    the same lamp, yet all may differ on the text; for the lamp only
    lights the characters-the mind must divine the meaning". The object
    of a Parable is not that of a Problem; it does not seek to convince,
    but to suggest. It takes the thought below the surface of the
    understanding to the deeper intelligence which the world rarely
    tasks. It is not sunlight on the water, it is a hymn chanted to
    the Nymph who hearkens and awakes below.
    ****************************************************************
    ZANONI EXPLAINED by (unknown)
    
    The following are characters in the book. DW
    
    Menjour- Contemplation of the Actual-SCIENCE
    Always old, and must last as long as the Actual. Less fallible than
    Idealism, but less practically potent, from its ignorance of the
    human heart.
    
    Zanoni- Contemplation of the Ideal-IDEALISM
    Always necessarily sympathetic: lives by enjoyment; and is therefore
    typified by eternal youth. Idealism is the potent Interpreter and
    Prophet of the Real; but its powers are impaired in proportion
    to their exposure to human passion.*
    
    *Footnote from (Unknown)
    "I do not understand the making Idealism less undying (on this scene
    of existence) than Science."
    Editors comment "Because, granting the above premises, Idealism
    is more subjected than Science to the Affections, or to Instinct,
    because the Affections, sooner or later, force Idealism into the
    Actual, and in the Actual its immortality departs. The only absolutely
    Actual portion of the work is found in the concluding scenes that
    depict the Reign of Terror. The introduction of this part was objected
    to by some as out of keeping with the fanciful portions that preceded
    it. But if the writer of this solution has rightly 
    shown or suggested the intention of the Author, the most strongly
    and rudely actual scene of the age in which the story is cast was
    the necessary and harmonious completion of the whole. The excesses
    and crimes of humanity are the grave of the Ideal.  
    
    Viola-HUMAN INSTINCT
    (Hardly worthy to be called LOVE, as Love would not forsake its
    object at the bidding of Superstition)
    Resorts, first, in its aspiration after the Ideal, to tinsel shows;
    then relinquishes these for a higher love; but is still, from the
    conditions of its nature, inadequate to this, and liable to suspicion
    and mistrust. Its greatest force (Maternal Instinct) has power to
    penetrate some secrets, to trace some movements of the Ideal, but,
    too feeble to command them, yields to Superstition-sees sin where
    there is none, while commiting sin, under a false guidance-weakly
    seeking refuge amidst the very tumults of the warring passions of
    the Actual, while deserting the serene Ideal, and expiring (not
    perishing, but becoming transmuted) in the aspiration after having
    the laws of the two natures reconciled.
    
    Aidon-Ai-FAITH, which manifests its splendor, and delivers its
    oracles, and imparts its marvels, only to the higher moods of the
    soul, and whose directed antagonism is with FEAR; so that those
    who employ the resources of Fear must dispense with those of Faith.
    Yet aspiration holds open a way of restoration, and may summon Faith,
    even when the cry issues from beneath the yoke of Fear.
    
    Dweller of the Threshold-FEAR (or HORROR), from whose ghastliness
    men are protected by the opacity of the region of Prescription and
    Custom. The moment this protection is relinquished, and the human
    spirit pierces the cloud, and enters alone on the unexplored regions
    of Nature, this Natural Horror haunts it, and is to be successfuly
    encountered only by defiance-by aspiration towards, and reliance
    on, the Former and Director of Nature, whose Messenger and Instrument
    of reassurance is Faith.
    
    Mervale-CONVENTIONALISM
    
    Nicot- Base, grovelling, malignant PASSION (i.e. Hate, not necessarily
    sensual. It is a commentary on the culture, and the times, that
    most of us think of sex when we see the word passion, rather than
    strong, charging bull emotion DW).
    
    Glyndon-UNSUSTAINED ASPIRATION
    Would follow Instinct, but is deterred by Conventialism-is overawed
    by Idealism, yet attracted,and transiently inspired; but has not
    steadiness for the iniatory contemplation of the Actual. He conjoins
    its snatched privileges with a besetting sensualism, and suffers
    at once from the horror of the one and the disgust of the other,
    involving the innocent in the fatal conflict of his spirit. When
    on the point of perishing, he is rescued by Idealism; and, unable
    to rise to that species of existence, is grateful to be replunged
    into the region of the Familiar, and takes up his rest henceforth
    in Custom. (Mirror of Young Manhood).
    
    ARGUMENT (from the Editor of the book)
    
    ...The pursuit of the Ideal involves so much emotion as to render
    the Idealist vulnerable by human passion-however long and well guarded,
    still vulnerable-liable, at last, to a union with Instinct. Passion
    obscures both Insight and Forecast. All effort to elevate Instinct
    to Idealism is abortive, the laws of their being not coinciding
    Instinct is either alarmed, and takes refuge in Superstition or
    Custom, or is left helpless to human charity, or given over to 
    providential care.
    
    Idealism, stripped of insight and forecast, loses its serenity,
    becomes subject once more to the horror from which it had escaped,
    and by accepting its aids, forfeits the higher help of Faith:
    aspiration, however, remaining still possible; and, thereby, slow
    restoration; and also, SOMETHING BETTER.
    
    Summoned by aspiration, Faith extorts from Fear itself the saving
    truth to which Science continues blind, and which Idealism itself
    hails as its crowning acquisition-the inestimable PROOF wrought
    out by all labors and all conflicts.
    
    Pending the elaboration of this proof,
    
    Conventionalism plods on, safe and complacent:
    Selfish passion perishes, grovelling and hopeless:
    Instinct sleeps, in order to a loftier waking: and
    Idealism learns, as its ultimate lesson, that self-sacrifice is
    true redemption; that the region beyond the grave is the fitting
    one for exemption from mortal conditions; and that Death is the
    everlasting portal, indicated by the finger of God-the broad avenue,
    through which man does not issue, solitary and stealthy, into the
    region of Free Existence, but enters triumphant, hailed by a hierarchy
    of immortal natures.
    
    The result is (in other words,) THAT THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN LOT IS,
    AFTER ALL, THAT OF THE HIGHEST PRIVILEGE.