Conference hydra::dejavu

re; < Note 729.0 by FNYHUB::PELLATT "Enter the Dragon !" >

>    Would anyone like to offer advice on Crystal Balls ?

I've become more comfortable, personally, with calling them "spheres".

One theory about spheres as opposed to terminations is that terminations direct 
all energy to the point, whereas spheres are all-directional.  In some studies, 
terminations represent the God energy, while spheres are the balance, or 
Goddess, energy.

If yours is a clear sphere, watch out for leaving it in the sunlight; I had a 
glass-blown sphere on a cloth in the sun once, and it burned the cloth!  I 
caught it in time...
    
I prepare my spheres for energy work by placing them in a glass bowl of salt 
water either under the full moon for 3 or more hours, or under full sunlight 
for 3 or more hours, anywhere between 10am and 3pm, when the rays are the 
strongest.

Knowing the property of the mineral of which your sphere is made (i.e., rose 
quartz is an emotional balancer) is helpful.  I'm excited to see how others use 
theirs; I use mine in both scrying and simple meditations (which sometimes lead 
to "accidental" scrying!).  I do this by staring at/into the sphere, 
concentrating on its properties, meditating on the corresponding part of my 
life which I feel "needs" its healing effect the most.  Sometimes when I do 
this, thoughts come to mind (like a scrying effect) that I find are most 
helpful.

Spheres are great to have around!  Enjoy yours.
Meredith

    Perhaps what I am about to share will not be what you would like
    to hear  nevertheless, it is worthy of your careful consideration.
                          
    Crystal Ball's, Quiji Boards, Tarot Cards, Transendental Meditation,
    the chanting of "Mantra's" are all (innocent appearing) 
    doorways that can be very dangerous. They open on a spiritual realm
    that is inhabited by beings as real as you or I. Those being's that
    exploit these "mediums" to communicate, are inherently evil, despite
    what they cloak themselves in, or disguise their message's to reflect.
    
    Staring into a Crystal Ball emptying ones mind at the same time
    leaves one open to these influences. Chanting a Mantra sounds innocent 
    enough but what one is really doing is calling upon the name of
    a deity! Reapeating it's name over and over invokes and literally
    call's it to you!
    
    These practices that seem interesting and actually "vogue" are far
    more dangerous than anyone who has little background on the true
    nature of these practices could imagine!
    
    I never cease to be amazed at the lengths many people will go
    to (I did also) to seriously examine and involve themselves in genuine
    searches for "truth". What astounds me is that many look to the
    most esoteric, exotic and unusual sources and reject, ignore or
    bypass (write off) the Christian perspective, that is before them
    all along ( I did also ).
    
    I know what you are looking for . . . but you won't find it in these
    things. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Richard
    
    P.S. Thanks for sharing
     
    

    Re: .2
    
    >They open on a spiritual realm that is inhabited by beings as real as 
    >you or I. Those being's that exploit these "mediums" to communicate, 
    >are inherently evil, despite what they cloak themselves in, or
    >disguise their message's to reflect.
    
    Richard, I have a question...  What is your proof and evidence
    regarding all beings in the spiritual realm are inherently evil?
    What do you base this on?
    
    Also, any minister, priest, preacher, et al. that say that they
    talk to Jesus... How do they know it's the real Jesus?  Could the
    being coming through to talk to these people be one of "those
    inherently evil spirit beings" posing as Jesus?
    
    Also, is not Jesus in the "spiritual realm" that you talk about?
    
    In my book, any person who says they "talk to Jesus" is either a
    medium or liar.
    
    Just wondering...

    Linda

re; < Note 729.2 by BORIKN::ESPOSITO >

    >it is worthy of your careful consideration.

And perhaps the following is worthy of yours.
                          
>    Crystal Ball's, Quiji Boards, Tarot Cards, Transendental Meditation,
>    the chanting of "Mantra's" are all (innocent appearing) 
>    doorways that can be very dangerous. 

*Can be*.  Anything can be dangerous, including getting out of bed in the 
morning (what if you accidentally stepped on your cat's tail, oooh noooo!).  
Refusing to see any viewpoint other than your own can be dangerous, too.

>    They open on a spiritual realm
>    that is inhabited by beings as real as you or I. Those being's that
>    exploit these "mediums" to communicate, are inherently evil, despite
>    what they cloak themselves in, or disguise their message's to reflect.

Just because this is your belief does not make it universally correct.  I don't 
use my spheres to attract mediums, at all, in the first place.  My spheres 
touch off something inside of myself that "knows" something that my conscious 
mind has not yet realized.  This benefits me.  Therefore, it is good.  
Something that has proven to help many people on their path to the Highest Good 
has validity and can be useful to the world.  Mediums have helped some people 
to walk in the Light.  The outcome is good, is positive.  Your experience may 
be otherwise, but you cannot speak for everyone, and I wonder why you persist 
in doing so.  The Bible, in and of itself, can be interpreted umpteen ways.  
There are those of us who believe that it was edited by Man, for selfish 
reasons.  So who knows what the full story is.  No one, really.  We can only do 
the best that we can do.  If you don't approve of someone's methodology, that's 
too bad.  It's not up to you to save anyone.  We each are responsible for 
ourselves.
    
>    Staring into a Crystal Ball emptying ones mind at the same time
>    leaves one open to these influences. Chanting a Mantra sounds innocent 
>    enough but what one is really doing is calling upon the name of
>    a deity! Reapeating it's name over and over invokes and literally
>    call's it to you!

Mantra-chanting is used for many and varied purposes, and one purpose may or 
may not be the one you mention; with that, I am unfamiliar.  However, I do know 
that a mantra can be a holy word, a way of calling God, however one perceives 
Him; a way of calling forth and finding the best within the Self.  I prefer to 
think of staring into a crystal ball as "focusing" the mind on something in 
particular, not "emptying" the mind.  Everything is still there; I'm just 
focusing on one particular question/need.

If someone wants to summon evil; if someone's intent is to deal with evil, then 
I doubt that your danger warnings will be of any significance.
    
>    These practices that seem interesting and actually "vogue" are far
>    more dangerous than anyone who has little background on the true
>    nature of these practices could imagine!

If I'm going to practice something, it's certainly not going to be because it's 
considered "vogue".  I have my own style...and that may be taken many ways, 
including coming into touch with whatever is in me that signals when not to do 
something, and when to do it.  I trust my own sense.  Each person needs to 
learn to trust his or her own sensors, to stay away from things that the Self 
recognizes as "not for me".  To trust someone else's sensors is to leave the 
Self open and vulnerable to mayhem (what you may perceive as evil).  That means 
that people should learn it for themselves, and not place you in charge of it, 
even though it seems to me that you would like to "be in charge for the good 
of others" - you cannot - we must each know ourselves well enough to take 
charge of ourselves.

>    I never cease to be amazed at the lengths many people will go
>    to (I did also) to seriously examine and involve themselves in genuine
>    searches for "truth". 

We each do have our own path to walk.  This path obviously did not work for 
you, but you cannot assume the experiences of others judging only by your own.

>    What astounds me is that many look to the
>    most esoteric, exotic and unusual sources and reject, ignore or
>    bypass (write off) the Christian perspective, that is before them
>    all along ( I did also ).

About which Christian perspective are you speaking?  Let me rephrase that.  You 
can speak from no other perspective, other than your own.  Within Christianity, 
there are several different varying ideas on what is true Christianity.  We 
each have to find what works best for us.  Within metaphysics, there exists  
Christian thought; Christian perspective, that is not being ignored or 
bypassed.  Those into scrying, channeling, etc, can be on their way to the 
Highest Good.  Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean that it 
universally does not work.
    
>    I know what you are looking for . . . but you won't find it in these
>    things. 

No, Richard, *you* didn't find it in these things.  You found it in yourself.  
As we all must do.  If these things help and assist us, then we have every 
reason to use them.  If these things did not help and assist you, then you have 
every reason not to use them.    
    
>    P.S. Thanks for sharing

I'm curious.  Do you learn anything here; do you take any ideas here and use 
them in your life; do you find anything of benefit in here; if not, then why 
are you here?     

    Re .2 (Richard):
    
    Thank you for caring.
    
    >I know what you are looking for . . . but you won't find it in these
    >things. 
     
    There's a problem here: this notefile is involved in examining large
    areas of what's called "the paranormal."  That is, primarily outside
    the religious aspect.  Now, one side of that spectrum is the
    "supernatural" side, involving studies of things like spirits and
    other discarnate beings; the other side is the parascientific,
    studying such things as telekinesis and dowsing.  Where does one
    draw the line?
    
    >Crystal Ball's, Quiji Boards, Tarot Cards, Transendental Meditation,
    >the chanting of "Mantra's" are all (innocent appearing) 
    >doorways that can be very dangerous. ...
     
    True.  Patricularly for those who don't take it seriously.  Those
    who think, say, that a Ouija Board is basically used in a parlor
    game, or who think that "holding a seance" is a great way to relieve
    boredom.
    
    Please read note 12.  And Note 252.  People who particpate in this
    Conference generally take these things very seriously.
    
    > ...................................  They open on a spiritual realm
    >that is inhabited by beings as real as you or I. 
    
    Or more than one realm, in my opinion.  Probably a minimum of ten.
    
    > ..........................................  Those being's that
    >exploit these "mediums" to communicate, are inherently evil, despite
    >what they cloak themselves in, or disguise their message's to reflect.
     
    That might be too blanket a statement.  Certainly any entity that
    "exploits" another, is, in my opinion, evil.  
    
    > ............................... Chanting a Mantra sounds innocent 
    >enough but what one is really doing is calling upon the name of
    >a deity! Reapeating it's name over and over invokes and literally
    >call's it to you!                    
     
    Reportedly, some mantras have been constructed that way; others
    have not.  However, invocation almost invariably requires a conscious
    effort on the part of the person trying to do the invocation.
    Otherwise,one could invoke anything by setting up a repeating tape
    to say the name of the entity desired.  
    
    The majority of people in this Conference are very sensitive to
    the issues involved; that is why there are several cautionary notes
    scattered throughout.  For newcomers, an occasional reminder never
    hurts, though.
    
    As Fredrick pointed out in another note, bringing a religious
    perspective to these notes should be done with care, so that it
    doesn't appear to be proselytizing.  It might be worth all of us
    reviewing note 1.2 for appropriate etiquette in this Conference.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .4 (Meredith):
    
> ............................................................ I don't 
>use my spheres to attract mediums, at all, in the first place. 
 
    "Here, pretty young medium.  You like nice, shiny crystal ball?"
    :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   
        

re; Steve....;-) you sly guy

>> ............................................................ I don't 
>>use my spheres to attract mediums, at all, in the first place. 
 
>    "Here, pretty young medium.  You like nice, shiny crystal ball?"
>    :-D

Medium rare with a side of terminations, pleez.  Hee, hee hee!

    Re .2 Richard,
    
    Thank you for your concern, but rest assured that I have no interest
    in, nor, therefore, innate vulnerability to, the darker forces. I
    would ask you to accept that my beliefs ( and thus my worlds ) are
    profoundly different to yours ; I have no reason to fear mine - I
    have had a number of "spiritual" experiences of varying profoundness
    and they have never presented anything but peace, beauty and light.

    
    Re .1 Meredith,
    
    Thanks ! "spheres" they are. On materials ; would you be able to
    list the properties of other minerals ? FYI, the ball ( sorry, 
    sphere ) I have is man-made and glass and has been in my family
    for at least four generations.
        
    
    Now, assuming for a moment that crystal "spheres" are *NOT* inherently
    evil, could we call a truce on the rathole ? Let's talk spheres !
    
    Thanks everyone, Dave.        

re; Dave

>    Thanks ! "spheres" they are. On materials ; would you be able to
>    list the properties of other minerals ? 

Of those most commonly made into spheres;

Rose quartz 		Emotional balancing
Obsidian		Grounding, scrying
Clear quartz		Clarity, focusing
Amethyst		Psychic unfoldment, third-eye opening, healing

That's pretty basic.

>    FYI, the ball ( sorry, 
>    sphere ) I have is man-made and glass and has been in my family
>    for at least four generations.

It's OK, you can call it a ball!  I call it a "sphere" to avoid the 
stereotypical associations, and "sphere" seems to me to be more encompassing of 
a word.  Personal preference.

Seeing as how it has been in your family for so long, I would assume that you 
could tap in to it to learn more about your family history.  Since it is clear, 
you could also probably use it in much the way that you could use a clear 
quartz sphere.  Why don't you try, next time you meditate with it, to ask it 
how it may best help you; personalized purpose.  Generations pass down 
thoughts, ideas, experiences, to generations.  You have a lot available to you 
through that sphere, I bet.  This sounds like it could be very educational, and 
also very "happifying"! ;-)

         Dave, in case you were too preocupied to look, note number
    69 in this conference is on crystals.  You will find additional
    information there.  Crystal balls are primarily useful in storing
    information (knowledge) and are also especially good for protection.
    I have been caring one around in my pocket for nearly a year now
    (and I also wear a double-terminated one on a chain around my neck.)
      
         As for the leaded glass ball...forget it.  It isn't worth whatever
    energy you put into it (given a choice of a better alternative...ie.,
    the "real" thing [quartz].)  January was my girlfriend's birthday
    month.  I had planned on getting something for her when, in a 
    friend's house to exchange massages, I discovered a large crystal
    ball.  Upon inquiries, I found myself purchasing the ball for a
    wonderfully low price.  The day of my girlfriend's birthday also
    happened to be a Lazaris seminar, so I took the ball there to give
    it to her there.  I showed it to various people all of whom "oohed"
    and "aahhhed" the softball-sized beauty.  My girlfriend was sick
    and she never made it to the workshop but I took it to her "knowing"
    that it had some nice charges in it (I had cleaned and cleared it
    earlier.)  Well, to make this long story short, about a month later
    I discovered, after she complained that she wasn't getting anything
    from it, that the ball I had given Dana was not real...it was leaded
    glass.  I felt very embarassed.  Anyway, I discovered it on my
    own (and later found out it came from Austria) so that helps a bit.
    But in looking into it, I found that it is not real useful.  It's
    use may be as a self-focusing device or as a self-hypnosis device,
    etc. but not as we have been discussing crystals in this conference.
    Save your money for the "real" thing unless you want it only as
    a nice decoration.
    
    
    Frederick
    

Re; Frederick;

>         Dave, in case you were too preocupied to look, note number
>    69 in this conference is on crystals.  You will find additional
>    information there.  

Thanks for the reference.  With 750+ topics to go through, preoccupation 
doesn't always play a role in not locating something.  The long-term NOTERS of 
DEJAVU are most helpful guides.

>   Crystal balls are primarily useful in storing
>   information (knowledge) and are also especially good for protection.

Is the information stored in them already, or do you store it there?  If your 
answer is the latter, I would be hesitant to store anything in a crystal ball, 
reason being that what if your magic is stolen?  Empowerment, as it is called 
(putting energy into things) is not the best idea, for this, among other, 
reasons.  Other reasons; I believe it is best to not rely on tools for things, 
but rather, the self.  Use spheres as a guide to what is already within, not as 
a source.  My way of practicing.  I know of others who feel differently.
      
>         As for the leaded glass ball...forget it.  It isn't worth whatever
>    energy you put into it (given a choice of a better alternative...ie.,
>    the "real" thing [quartz].)  

I agree that quartz is a better source than glass; however, in this case, the 
sphere has been in the family for generations, and has probably "witnessed" 
(for want of a better word) much that has happened, and might be helpful in 
enabling Dave to attach a stronger bond to his family history.  It wasn't 
something he just ran in to at the flea market.

>Upon inquiries, I found myself purchasing the ball for a
>wonderfully low price.  

It's too bad you didn't get what you expected.  I found a beautiful, 
raquetball-ball sized, absolutely clear quartz crystal sphere and the cost was 
$500.  Worth every penny, from the rarity of the things, but of course, I 
didn't buy it.  I just held it for a while; it was so Light.  I understand that 
a clear quartz sphere of the size you describe can go for up to $1500.

>that the ball I had given Dana was not real...it was leaded glass.

It really was a real "ball", Frederick, and it could be used for certain 
purposes, but you had cleared it and charged it as if it were a quartz ball, 
and it was not.  It still can have useful purposes, in energy balancing, but 
one simply has to remember that quartz, it is not, and therefore, its purpose 
can not be the same.  I still suggest that Dave meditate with the ball and ask 
it what its purpose may be, to him, personalized.  The ball you describe sounds 
like it is made of Australian lead crystal, which is not crystal as we have 
been describing, but is crystal in its own sense.

    re: Meredith--
     
        Austrian, not Australian...
    
        I disagree with what you say.  Briefly, I do not care if someone
    wishes to "borrow" my energy.  Assuming they are able to tap into
    it, I think it is mostly positive and helpful.  *I*, however, will
    be very careful in tapping the energy from others, especially when
    the source is unknown.  After all, that is what the purpose in cleaning
    and clearing is all about.  Assuming he is able to meditate on the
    chunk of glass and get anything at all about his family (doubtful...
    since it is undoubtably extremely weak) he can set himself up to
    "block" the negative energy that will come from it.  What negative
    energy?  The negative energy that is to be found in most of the
    consensus reality...one only needs to read some of your "Queen for
    a Day" stories to get an idea of whence I speak.  
        OF COURSE we want to put our own energy into the ball.  When
    in an altered state or when in a state of intense concentration
    or focus, is a great time for charging the chargeable quartz with
    the desired energy.  Later, it can be used to amplify or augment
    an energy or can simply be used as a source for that energy.
    
    Once again, forget the glass.  It really isn't worth it except as
    some sort of souvenir or momento or "object d'art."
     
    Also, the ball you described (softball-sized) can fetch nearly 
    $3000 hereabouts.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re:729.3
    
    I was somewhat surprised at the "negativity" conveyed in your response.
    Once again; it is a good thing to remember that the most precious
    privilege one can possess in a free society is the privilege of
    "free thought" and "free expression". I have always wondered why
    in the citadel of free thought and expression, which was ancient
    Athens, one such as Socrates was forced drink Hemlock! Why did he
    not defend himself? What was his crime? Stone, examines this question
    in his new book, "The Trial Of Socrates". (Just a thought)
    
    I am surprised at the deep seated rejection of a classic Christian
    perspective on the subject in question and the "jagged" response's
    "Biblical" based concepts evoke.                         
    
    I suppose it would be a good excercise for those whose emotions are
    stirred by my opinions, to examine themselves within to ask why? You
    don't have to take what I say ver-batum or "sacred". Nevertheless, the
    right to express it is sacred. If you have had the opportunity to
    travel behind the Iron Curtain you would agree what a tremendous thing
    this electronic forum truly is. The flip side is "Censorship"?
    
    Regards,
    
    Richard
    
    
    
    

    To 729.4:
    
    Please refer to 729.13.
    
    Regards,
    
    Richard
    

    Hot darn, I have been trying to answer for half an hour, but we
    lost contact.  I have now been beamed up,
    
    so, Dave,
    
    a friend with a large lead crystal ball, very clear, *has* had some
    amazing results, using or not using tarot cards at the same time.
    
    Go on instinct, if it feels right, and it did find you, right, then
    go with it.  
    
    Instinct still tells me to go with the black obsidian ball, and
    I will later this year.  It will come to me.  But, then I get a
    lot of flack about using a black ball.  Doesn't worry me any more,
    its what I keep hearing, then so be it.
    
    The first crystal that called to me was a smokey quartz, ugly little
    blighter, but I love it.  If you still need a method to cleanse
    it, then try Katrina Raphell's Crystal Enlightenment for some methods,
    and use the one that feels the best for you.  Can't beat sunshine
    for a day.
    
    Enjoy,
    
    ...dale

    
    Dave,
    FANTASTIC! Sounds to me that you have had some neat people in your
    family in the past. (is Pellatt a different form of spelling for
    Pickingill??? ;-)) anyway you might want to cleanse it but you also
    might wish to do a brief (1 to 3 min) meditation with it. Reason?
    well any stored power from a past relative ect could be weak and
    might diminish completely if you start dumping salt all over it.
    
    Ref some negitivity about non-Crystal Crystal balls. 
    	1) is perception reality? isn't that sort of what the New-Age
    is all about? if so... cant we use other forms to "masnifest" power
    besides old accepted ways? why not Crystal, why not quartz, why
    not out-worn jocky shorts? (how poetic?)  if its important to the
    person and the person believes there is a "link" i can not
    doubt it.
        2) We dont know the past ability/history of Daves family
    or of Dave. he might have greater ability/sensitivity to pick
    up things that we cant. Just because some of us have no use
    for Glass orbs, it dosen't mean that there isn't a use.
    
    ref .2
    	That's just Richard, i'll just pass over this note.    
    
    ref .15 
    	in agreement!!
                            
    the happy medium!
    craig,                                                           
    
    
    	

    Re: 729.5
    
    True religion can not be divorced or devoid of the paranormal, the
    para-scientific experience, much less the supernatural. In fact they
    our the cornerstone's of all religion in every culture worldwide, past
    present and future. 
    
    Countless visions (apparitions) of the "Virgin Mary" from Fatima
    to a Cuban Barrio in Little Havana in Maiami. A visitation from
    an Angel called Moroni and the unearthing of cryptic Gold Plates marked
    the founding of the Mormon church. Oil paintings of the Christ that
    shed tears at regular intervals. Joan of Arc and her "voices" which
    led her to the forefront of mighty battles with thousands of foot
    soldiers behind her and eventually to a fiery death burnt at the
    stake as a heretic!
                     
    I have seen in India some years ago, a man suspended in mid air by hooks
    sunk deep in the flesh of his back. I have seen individuals pass scures
    through their flesh without shedding a drop of blood or wincing from
    pain. Others to show their faith walk across beds of white hot glowing
    coals and are unscathed.
    
    I have seen healing services conducted in Pentecostal Tent meetings
    where cripples have gotten up from wheel chairs and walked, the
    deaf have had their hearing restored and blinds eyes were opened.
    
    During the Vietnam War while stationed in South East Asia I saw
    a child healed in a Buddahist temple after a strange ritual was
    performed over her. "Sympathetic magic" as modern scholars refer
    to it, is conducted in Voodoo ceremoines to influence the lives
    of others for good or evil . . . it appears to work.
    
    Where does one draw the line?
    
    One can not.
    
    The Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the authenticity of the Bible.
    If one studies this book seriously one would readily see it is in
    and of itself work that is filled with the paranormal and supernatural.
    
    Pluaralism dictates that there is more than one answer to any single
    question.  Yet many reject the Bible for example; on personal prejudice
    without ever having studied it's contents. 
    
    This book contains incredible facts that discuss themes that range from the
    Great Pyramid to the true significance of the Zodiac, to Numerology
    and Chronology to the most fantastic predictions pertaining to things
    like the invention of the telephone and the Hydrogen Bomb.
    
    Pure scientific fact is contained therein i.e. the explanation of
    rain, the idea that the world is round found in the book of Job
    1,800 years before it was even considered by Columbus! The scientific
    explanation of the Trade Winds (of all things) is there too! All these
    facts and more, not written in some obscure poetic rhyme that is
    subject to interpretation but clearly.
    
    The themes herein discussed are indeed dealt with in this book.
    Why it is the easiest book to acquire, yet the least consulted and most
    derided by those who have never studied it is a real mystery.
    
    The Bible hasd been used by historians and archeologists to locate
    and establish the actual existence of ancient cities such as Ur
    of the Chaldees. James Henry Breasted refered constantly to it in
    all his scholarly works to collaborate and verify his findings.
    
    No man is an island . . . and there is a sea of possibilities all
    about. I have offered for consideration a ancient source of knowledge
    on the subjects herein discussed . . . judge for yourself.
    
    Regards,
    
    Richard
    
            
    
    

    
    Very Good! we have the head-space, now all we need is the timing.;-)
    	this note was of no offense to anyone (that i could see)
    	and was somewhat informative, not informative about
    	Crystal Balls, but informative. 
    
  (a .50 Cal and Dejavu dont mix)
    craig
    

    Re .17 (Richard):
    
    >Where does one draw the line?
    >
    >One can not.
     
    But that's the point of this Conference.  You have lumped healings
    in Pentacostal churches with equivalent happenings in Bhuddist temples
    and in Voudoun rites.  However, in your previous responses you allude
    to Isaiah 8:19, which seems to imply a moral judgement by you on
    this conference and its participants, as if we all followed identical
    paths that at are variance with your perception of the Christian
    faith.
    
    >Pure scientific fact is contained therein i.e. the explanation of
    >rain, the idea that the world is round found in the book of Job
    >1,800 years before it was even considered by Columbus! The scientific
    >explanation of the Trade Winds (of all things) is there too! All these
    >facts and more, not written in some obscure poetic rhyme that is
    >subject to interpretation but clearly.
     
    I beg your pardon.  "Pure scientific fact" is putting some of the
    Biblical writings (which are moral teachers, not a scientific textbook)
    at odds with reality.  In Genesis 9:12-16, for example, the Lord established
    a covenant with Noah by putting a rainbow in the clouds.  Either
    there was no rainbow before that moment (otherwise the covenant
    gesture would be meaningless), or the physical laws of the universe
    were changed at that moment (light would have to had refracted
    differently prior to that moment or a rainbow would be a natural
    consequence of light and water droplets, as any elementary optics
    text would reveal).  That may be a metaphysical truth, but it is
    at sharp variance with scientific reality.  Further The Book of
    Job was written at about the time when the civilization of the Hellenic
    Greeks was interacting with the Nation of Israel, and long after
    the Greeks had determined the approximate spherical shape of the
    Earth.  
    
    >The themes herein discussed are indeed dealt with in this book.
    >Why it is the easiest book to acquire, yet the least consulted and most
    >derided by those who have never studied it is a real mystery.
     
    Why do you assume that at least some of the Conference members here
    haven't a copy of the Bible?  Even some nonChristian members do.
    
    >This book contains incredible facts that discuss themes that range from the
    >Great Pyramid to the true significance of the Zodiac, to Numerology
    >and Chronology to the most fantastic predictions pertaining to things
    >like the invention of the telephone and the Hydrogen Bomb.
     
    As an amateur student of Egyptian culture, and someone not unfamiliar
    with Scriptures, I've found several Egyptian connections/allusions,
    but none on the Great Pyramid (one of the solidest being the I Kings
    11:40, where Jerobam fled to the Pharaoh of Egypt, "Shishak," [actually
    Pharaoh Sheshonk], and also the identification of the city of Pa-Bast
    ["Pi-beseth"] in Ezekiel 30:17).  I'd appreciate anything that clearly
    shows some revelation about the Great Pyramid.  As for "predictions"
    of inventions, most of these are so oblique that they could fit
    to a number of things (e.g., taken out of context, Isaiah 60:8 could
    be said to "predict" the airplane).
    
    >The Bible hasd been used by historians and archeologists to locate
    >and establish the actual existence of ancient cities such as Ur
    >of the Chaldees. ...
     
    And _The Iliad_ enabled people to find the ancient city of Troy.
    I fail to see how such statements should strengthen or weaken our
    faiths.
    
    God bless,
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re; < Note 729.13 by BORIKN::ESPOSITO >

    
>    I was somewhat surprised at the "negativity" conveyed in your response.

You may have perceived it as negative because it disagreed with your message 
contained in an earlier note, but I have reread my response and fail to see it 
as negative, although you could see it that way since you have no way of 
hearing the intonation of my words as I speak.  To give you a clue; I was 
speaking calmly and clearly.  There was no anger.  I wanted to present my 
point, same as you wanted to present yours.  

>    Once again; it is a good thing to remember that the most precious
>    privilege one can possess in a free society is the privilege of
>    "free thought" and "free expression". 

That is correct.  I am free to disagree with you.  You are free to disagree 
with me.  You are free to try and impose your beliefs on others.  They are free 
to reject them or accept them.

>    I have always wondered why
>    in the citadel of free thought and expression, which was ancient
>    Athens, one such as Socrates was forced drink Hemlock! Why did he
>    not defend himself? What was his crime? Stone, examines this question
>    in his new book, "The Trial Of Socrates". (Just a thought)

As I defended my beliefs, and you defend yours.
    
>    I am surprised at the deep seated rejection of a classic Christian
>    perspective on the subject in question and the "jagged" response's
>    "Biblical" based concepts evoke.                         

I do not reject Christian perspective.  I do not have to accept another's 
interpretation of what is Christian perspective, either.  I do not feel that my 
lack-of-acceptance was "deep-seated".
    
>    I suppose it would be a good excercise for those whose emotions are
>    stirred by my opinions, to examine themselves within to ask why? 

I know why I disagree with your opinions in a public forum, and I would like to 
add that I did disagree in .4 in a non-emotional way, although you are free to 
read emotion in to it if you like.  I disagree with your opinions out in the 
open because I have a right to do so, and because I believe differently than do 
you.  I asked simple questions about what you are getting from this file 
because I am curious what it is that you are getting from this file.  My hope 
would be that you did not read any intonations in to my questions that were not 
there.  Your perspective on Christianity is different from the perspective of 
many of us in this file, and thus being so, I wonder what it is you can learn 
by participating.  Most of us here, and I *think* I can speak for those who 
practice metaphysics, already have made a conscious decision that we will work 
with certain energies, as well as representations, such as spheres. Others of 
us do not want to work with spheres and crystals, but there are certain things 
that we each do that do not match your perspective.  What I am saying is, that 
via your warnings and preachings (I am not saying "preaching" in an "accusing" 
way, and I mean no negativity by it), you are going over "old territory" for 
those of us who have already made a decision.  The decision to practice 
metaphysics has cost many of us; those around us have tended to bring up, time 
after time, the same arguments you present, and we have lost friendships by 
sticking with our guns, believing we're right, and trying to find a better way 
for ourselves.  Some have lost more than that.

>    You
>    don't have to take what I say ver-batum or "sacred". 

I don't.

>    Nevertheless, the
>    right to express it is sacred. 

The right to disagree with it, is, also.

>    If you have had the opportunity to
>    travel behind the Iron Curtain you would agree what a tremendous thing
>    this electronic forum truly is. The flip side is "Censorship"?

I am puzzled.  It seems that you indicate that to disagree with you is to toy 
with your freedom of expression.  Your perception of whether or not a 
disagreement is put forth in a negative light is not always correct.  However, 
if someone does get negative when disagreeing with you, that, too, is part of a 
free forum, although it, too, has its limitations.

I speak directly, and do *not* go to the length of words that it takes to not 
only say what I have to say, but explain it so that no one feels offended.  
There exists the possibility of offending someone every time a strong belief is 
expressed.  I prefer to keep my notes that much shorter; they're long enough 
already.

I think this response well-illustrates that.    

    Yo ! Thanks everyone. Interesting information about Crystals and
    Christianity all in one note...  (8^)

    Re .15 
    
    Pickingill ???  My "powers" seem to have escaped me here... (8^)

        
    Hmm, well, as for lead crystal ; this particular ball was already
    slightly "warm" when it came into my possession ( just a week ago ) and
    this is *definitely* increasing. It has a good, clean feel to it.
    
    I read Tarot for someone last night with the ball present ( but covered ),
    more by accident than design. The reading was clear and "easy" and the
    ball was radiating quite strongly throughout. 
    
    So, I can confirm that lead crystal certainly *DOES* work but, having 
    never used anything else, I can't estimate how its power would compare. 
    
    I have yet to meditate with it but the suggestions that have been offered
    are most interesting. As far as I know, it has come down the female side
    of the family ( until now, in case anyone is wondering (8^) ) from, at
    least, my mother's Grandmother and though it has not been "used" for many
    years it has always been in a spiritually clean environment. 
    
    As a matter of interest - could anyone ( Steve ? Topher ? ) define the
    differences ( if any ) in the crystalline structures of quartz and
    man-made glass. The chemical composition is the same after all - Silicon
    Dioxide I believe ; the only differences, chemically, between Rose
    Quartz, Amethyst etc being the trace elements that give the colouration. 

    Thanks again, Dave.

re; < Note 729.12 by WRO8A::GUEST_TMP "HOME, in spite of my ego!" >

>        Austrian, not Australian...

I stand corrected.  I always get those two mixed up, except when speaking of 
the Vienna Symphony Orchestra.
    
>        I disagree with what you say.  Briefly, I do not care if someone
>    wishes to "borrow" my energy.  

O Capricorn in me, I had to respond, with my cautious side, intact; to clarify 
not to you, since I'm sure you already know, but to clarify, in general. ;-)

If I want to specifically give someone love, energy, light, then I do so.  
Unfortunately, I had a rotten experience with people "borrowing" my energy; 
once tapped in to, it was used to drain me; once I put my energy in surrounding 
objects, this "teacher" would say that I had "blown" them, and she "had to take 
them from me"; thus, she had more ways to tap in to my energy, and she abused 
this link, ad nauseum.  A shaman who has been working with me, and knows of my 
situation and the person who perpetuated it, is the one who told me what I 
relayed about Being the tool, rather than Using tools.

>    *I*, however, will
>    be very careful in tapping the energy from others, especially when
>    the source is unknown.  

Agreed.

>    chunk of glass and get anything at all about his family (doubtful...
>    since it is undoubtably extremely weak) 

It is not "undoubtably extremely weak".  Your experience is not necessarily the 
experience of others; myself, included.

>        OF COURSE we want to put our own energy into the ball.  When
>    in an altered state or when in a state of intense concentration
>    or focus, is a great time for charging the chargeable quartz with
>    the desired energy.  Later, it can be used to amplify or augment
>    an energy or can simply be used as a source for that energy.

I disagree, especially when speaking in terms of "we".  What if the sphere is 
taken by someone, and your energy is used against you?
    
>    Once again, forget the glass.  It really isn't worth it except as
>    some sort of souvenir or momento or "object d'art."

You speak as if this were The Fact.  I perceive it as your opinion, based upon 
your experience.
     
>    Also, the ball you described (softball-sized) can fetch nearly 
>    $3000 hereabouts.

Costs are higher back East.  If you are interested in the $500 ball  I 
mentioned, I can see if it's still available, and would be willing to transact 
the business for you.  It is very, very Light; that, I can promise!

No offense meant.  I've simply had experiences that vary greatly from the one 
you experienced.  Perhaps your experience was not as good because the ball was 
sold to you as a quartz crystal ball, and therefore, the energy was based upon 
some type of ... ??? "wrongness" ??? for want of a better word.

Love and Light
Meredith    

    Re .21 (Dave):
    
    >As a matter of interest - could anyone ( Steve ? Topher ? ) define the
    >differences ( if any ) in the crystalline structures of quartz and
    >man-made glass. The chemical composition is the same after all - Silicon
    >Dioxide I believe ; the only differences, chemically, between Rose
    >Quartz, Amethyst etc being the trace elements that give the colouration. 
     
    Oh, I guess a lot of people could, but since I'm here ... :-)
    
    Glass is "uncrystallized" silicon dioxide.  Quartz (and its variants
    such as amethyst) have a solid crystalline structure.  "Crystal"
    glass is so called because of its clarity/purity when compared with
    the cheaper glasses of yore.   
    
    A quartz crystal has specific electrical properties, and can be
    used as a frequency standard if connections are made prioerly. 
    It might have imperfections ("inclusions") in it, which can show
    up as a shading, usually somewhat laminar, or as a "flaw," which
    might show up optically as something planar or a planar solid. 
    A glass piece (a sort of solidified liquid) hasn't that sirt of
    structure, but may contain bubbles and/or lines of uneven optical properties
    (striations).  It is a good electrical insulator.  They treat light
    transmission much as in quartz spheres, though the respective
    refractive indices depend upon the glass types.
    
    As far as a glass sphere for metaphysical purposes goes, from a
    symbolic standpoint, it should make little difference; but that
    depends upon the users' intent.                
    
    In addition to "crystal" and glass spheres, I've seen over the past
    few years the proliferation of spheres made of acrylic plastic.
    Some of these are rather pretty, and are far less costly than even
    the glass spheres on a size-for-size basis (assuming equivalent
    clarity), but scratch easily.  Unlike the crystal or the glass
    materials, acrylic is a dielectric material.
    
    Hope these help ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .21
    
    > Request for physical difference between glass and quartz
    
    As similar as they appear they are close to being completely different
    states of matter.
    
    Quartz crystal is what is technically known as a crystal (as opposed
    to popular usage).  The atoms in it line up in a regular pattern.
    
    Glass is what is technically known as a "glass" (not joking) or
    a "vitreous solid" (which simply means "glasslike solid", the latin
    being used to disguised the common word) or an "amorphous solid".  The
    atoms form simple molecules, but the molecules are completely
    disordered.  Glass is a very, very viscous fluid.  Given enough
    time, it flows.  Currently there is an argument raging in the
    USENET physics bulletin board as to whether or not this occurs noticably
    under "normal" conditions on a timescale of a century or so.  People
    frequently cite the wedge shape of windows in older buildings as
    evidence for this flow.  Some in the conference are claiming that
    this is due instead to the way window glass was manufactured back
    then, and to the sensible practice of mounting the thickest side
    down.  I'll stay out of the argument until someone comes up with
    hard (no pun inteneded) facts to back up their opinion.
    
    As to the quality of quartz vs lead-glass -- my personal opinion
    (and I realize that this is an opinion) is that the differences
    from one substance to another are mostly psychological.  If you
    can't tell the difference, or the difference seems truly (emotionally
    *not* intellectually) meaningless, than one will work as well as
    the other.  This is not to say that all things are equal, since
    some substances and forms seem to have special psychological
    significance and/or resonances.  I repeat that this is only my
    opinion -- I have no facts which clearly support it.  The only
    basis is my own view of the world and the observation that the
    efficacy of various substances seems to vary a fair amount with
    the belief system of the operator.
    
    				Topher

re; Steve...    

>    acrylic is a dielectric material.
    
Dielectric...how eclectic!  (I could've resisted, but I didn't want to).

I had to look it up, and wanted to share what American Heritage Dictionary had 
to say; 

n. A nonconductor of electricity, especially a substance with electrical 
conductivity less than a millionth of a mho.

Any mho, any body?  (Hee, hee hee)

This is not to be confused with dialectic, which is the art or practice of 
arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in an opponent's 
argument and overcoming them.

Being a dialectic doer can be energizing.  Being a dialectic "done-ee" ;-) can 
be enlightening.  If personal insults are left out, both sides can be 
invigorated.  If both sides can remain peaceful, that is art.

    Well, gazing into my ( lead ) crystal ball I can see that New Agers
    and Christians ( let's play "spot the grossly unfair generalizations")
    are gonna be scrapping it out until either the Second Coming or
    we all get off the Wheel and end up in Nirvana ( Lazaris' lounge).
    
    The Base Note pre-supposes that Crystal Balls are NOT inherently
    evil, and neither are the Spiritual or Astral worlds they are
    associated with. Period !
    
    A discussion of whether or not this supposition is correct certainly
    would be better placed in a separate note and probably in another
    Conference. 
    
    Nothing ( especially not a personal "belief" ) is worth getting
    upset or angry about so everybody be nice to each other ( and no
    crossing your fingers when you make up ), please ?
    
    We're all going the same place in the end, after all.
    
    Peace, Dave.

           
    I couldn't pass this up....
    
    Dave, it is true that 'fundamentalist' Christians have a problem
    with things 'New Age'.
    
    It is also true that not all Christians are 'fundamentalist' 
    Christians.  
           
    Therefore, not all Christians are anti-New Age.  ("I'm not", she 
    says.)
    
    On that note, I will refrain from further comment on this issue, 
    having beat it to death in several other conferences already.
    
    (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re .27
    
    if  ALL A   believe   X,
    
    and  ALL A  is a subset of  ALL AA,
    
    then  no valid conclusion can be drawn about the beliefs of ALL AA
    
    
    	bruce  (i just had to beat steve k to this one :-)))

    Re .25 (Meredith):
    
>I had to look it up, and wanted to share what American Heritage Dictionary had 
>to say; 
>
>n. A nonconductor of electricity, especially a substance with electrical 
>conductivity less than a millionth of a mho.
 
    FWIW, a "mho" is the reciprocal of an ohm (unit of electrical
    resistance). 
    
    A dielectric has some interesting properties, including causing
    light striking it at certain angles to reflect from it in a polarized
    form.  Dielectrics are used in some capacitors to increase their
    capacity.
    
    A point of interest here is that the electrical characteristics
    of acrylic (composed of organic molecules) and glass are closer
    than those of glass and quartz; and none precisely duplicates the
    other.   It might be worth finding three identical spheres made
    of different materials and see how they "behave" in a double-blind
    experiment with scryers or meditators.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .29 (Steve)
    
    Wait a minute.  Essentially saying something is a "dielectric" is
    just another way of saying it is a good insulator.  Which term you
    use and where you draw the line between dielectric/insulator and
    non-dielectric/non-insulator is context dependent.  Generally if
    you are looking at the substance as something to simply block the
    direct flow of electricity you refer to it as an insulator (good
    or bad).  If you look at it instead as a substance which resists
    the strain placed on it by an electrical field (i.e., which reacts
    in a particular way to an electrical field) than you refer to it
    as a dielectric.
    
    Glass is normally considered a dielectric, but it is generally
    not *used* in practice as one because of some odd properties relative
    to its disordered structure: its conductivity is proportional to
    its temperature (it is frequently softened (it doesn't really melt)
    industrially by heating it part way so it conducts somewhat and then
    passing current through it to heat it the rest of the way) and
    over moderate time periods the metallic ions which it contains will
    migrate in response to an electrical field.
    
    Both characteristics mentioned for dielectrics apply to glass. 
    According to the reference I just checked the volume conductivity
    of the type of glass used in windows is approximately one ten-millionth
    of a mho, which is clearly less than one millionth of a mho.
    
    The polarizing effect you mentioned Steve, is the Brewster effect
    and was discovered by Brewster in the 18th century while looking
    through a bifringent (sp?) crystal at the oblique reflection of
    the sun in the windows of the palace of Versailles, i.e. it occurs
    in glass.
    
    I'm pretty sure quartz is also a dielectric -- but one whose ablility
    to hold charges seperated can be used in the piezoelectric effect.
    So -- I don't think we have a real distinction here.
    
    					Topher

    Re .30 (Topher):
    
    >I'm pretty sure quartz is also a dielectric -- but one whose ablility
    >to hold charges seperated can be used in the piezoelectric effect.
    >So -- I don't think we have a real distinction here.
     
    There's a minor distinction here, but no more.  Acrylic is a, er,
    more stable item as a dielectric (e.g., as the separating layer
    in a capacitor) because of the peculiarity of the "unstructure"
    of glass.  Quartz, because of its piezoelectric (and, with impurities,
    rectifying) characteristics, can be used in ways the others can't.
    However, since some claim that the forces involved in certain
    paranormal activities are subtle things," the slight differences
    could (note the qualifier) have some effects on the usage; that's
    why I suggested a double-blind experiment [admittedly extra tough
    when working with a potential talent that has a reputation for
    operating sporadically, even at best].  The minuscule differences
    between P material and N material make all the difference in
    semiconductor behavior, after all .... :-)
    
    Another thought: Of one could find (or grow) a _large_ crystal of
    salt, which in effect is one humungous cluster of sodium and chlorine
    oins, it would be interesting to see how a sphere carved out of
    _that_ would affect a scryer.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .24 (Topher)
    
    >  Currently there is an argument raging in the
    USENET physics bulletin board as to whether or not this occurs noticably
    under "normal" conditions on a timescale of a century or so.  People
    frequently cite the wedge shape of windows in older buildings as
    evidence for this flow. <
    
    Old glass panes eventually develope flow lines in them.  Look through
    glass that is 60 years old or more and you'll see what I mean.
    
    John M.

    John,
    
    I wondered where you where in all this.  
    
    ...dale
    

    Is there any difference between the ways "glass" and "crystal" balls
    will transmit light, or is this decided purely by the shape ?
    
    Waiting for that day of sunshine...
    
    Dave. 

    Re .34 (Dave):
    
    There is a characteristic of glass (and other fully transparent
    substances) called "index of refraction."  Without a _Handbook of
    Chemistry and Physics_ handy, I can't give you precise figures,
    but even different types of glass have diffeerent refractive indices.
    You'd have to check a quartz ball against whichever glass ball you
    had in mind to determine this.  Diamonds, for one, have as much
    higher refractive index than does and glass; water has less.
    
    Steve Kasllis, Jr.

RE: .32 (John M.)
    
    Yup.  I know about those flow lines (if I hadn't before, then I would
    have learned about them in January when I moved into a 100 year
    old house).  I had long ago learned that this was due to the tendency
    of glass to flow over periods of decades.
    
    A few years ago I first heard someone dispute this claiming that
    window glass at room temperature � 15C does not flow significantly in
    less than thousands of years.  The claim was that the technology for
    making sheets of glass was not up to modern standards, and that it
    tended to be somewhat wavy and thinner on one edge than on the other.
    The imperfections being due to this.  Some credence is given to
    this by the existence of imperfections which could not be due to
    cold flow (e.g., small air bubbles in the glass).  The strongest
    argument against it is that no one has noticed a window mounted
    with the thicker end up or to the side: it strains credibility that
    no one would have made a mistake about something so relatively subtle
    (on the other hand most of the time, the difference in thickness
    is small enough that unless you were looking for it you would miss
    it and the wavy lines do not distinguish up from down).
    
    So the argument rages, and no one has produced evidence that I
    would call conclusive: i.e., the time scale on which glass *does*
    flow signifcantly (people have presented plausible arguments which
    agrees with the belief that it *does* flow, and some references which
    I have checked agree).
    
    						Topher

    also, if anyone cares...
    
    quartz is also piezoelectric, where glass is not.
    
    piezoelectric (pee-zo-electric or pie-zo-electric, pronunciation)
    means that when you exert a pressure on both sizes of a quartz crystal,
    it creates a measurable voltage across the crystal.  Likewise, if
    you place a voltage across the crystal, it creates a slight change
    in its shape.  This is the principal that quartz crystal use in
    radios is based on.  Also, the use of quartz crystals to regulate
    clocks (there is a very regular response to a given stimulus). 
    
    Also, quartz and diamonds and other crystalline things tend to create
    a minute electric field around themselves when subjected to fairly
    strong light - and thus they get dusty faster than glass unless
    they're covered.
    
    -Jody (the vast wealth of useless knowledge...)
    

re; .37                         

>    also, if anyone cares...
 
I do...
   
>    quartz is also piezoelectric, where glass is not.

I was using that as an argument as to why are crystals effective, in the first 
place!  That was back when, in this file, someplace??? Topic 400, or 
thereabouts, rings a bell.  Fit in with some folks' realities, didn't fit in 
with others, as is the eternal vat of knowledge.
    
>    -Jody (the vast wealth of useless knowledge...)

It's useful!  (To some...;-) ;-))

      I wanted to get back to this sooner but didn't...
    
      Back to the differences between glass and quartz...The quartz
    crystals are "alive."  They have a very definite structure that
    resembles DNA (RNA) and blood, i.e., there is a spiraling of energy
    in 30 degree turns.  Glass, as has been pointed out, is randomly
    structured.
      Yes, it is true that *everything* is useful to us in our own
    individual realities.  Everything of which I have an awareness or
    perception is there "for a reason."  However, as we have discussed
    in other topics, some teachers are "better" than others.  To the
    extent that we will use one object (living or "dead") over another 
    is or can be the difference between a *good* lesson versus just simply
    *a* lesson.  We have the belief that humanity teaches us "better
    than" animals, vegetables, or minerals.  We do believe because our consensus
    reality does, unless we have made a conscious choice not to believe
    that (and I mean a real deep decision, not a superficial one.) 
    That being the case (and I am generalizing heavily here) there is
    a rationale that tells us that the closer to human the better. 
    Quartz is closer to human than glass (even though glass is man-made.)
    It can function in ways that glass cannot.  This computer (as pointed
    out in an earlier reply) has an artificial crystal as its basis.
    Our brains contain structured silicon which apparently we also use
    for "storage."  It is not random "glass" in either of these cases.
    We can communicate with this structure.  We are on this physical
    plane using physical tools.  Some of the tools are more useful than
    others, and, therefore, quartz crystal tools are more useful than the leaded
    glass "tools."  
        I could give you a rock to sit on and you might be grateful.
    But if you want to *really* be grateful, I'd probably give you
    an ergonaumically(sp?) designed chair instead.  Use the leaded glass
    if you want to, but it is more likely true that the "real thing"
    would give you much better results. 
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Good stuff, thanks everyone...seems I shall have to acquire a "crystal"
    ball for comparison...
    
    Two ( more ! ) questions come to mind...
    
    As for the *focusing* of light ( / some other energy ) being
    transmitted via the ball - wouldn't the effect be largely similar?
    
    Also, is a ball really a valid form to utilise "crystal" anyhow?
    Surely, the very process of machining (?) the ball artificially
    terminates the crystalline structure - the only way to get at the
    full properties must be to use a complete, properly terminated crystal,
    isn't it ? So, why do people use a crystal "ball" in the first place? 
    
    
    Sitting on an ( ergonomically designed ) cornflake,
    waiting for the van to come, Dave.

    
    Re:.39
    
    a similar view...
    
    a *good* lesson= anything i learned from
    
    just *a* lesson= i missed something
    
    > We have the belief that humanity teaches us "better than" animals,
    > vegetables, or minerals. We do believe because our consensus reality
    > does, unless we have made a conscious choice not to believe that
    > (and I mean a real deep decision, not a superficial one.) That
    > being the case (and I am generalizing heavily here) there is a
    > rationale that tells us that the closer to human the better
             
    1. who is this "We" guy/gal?
    
    	if humanity is such a good teacher how come I am getting "just
    *a* lesson? (yes i know.."i must be missing something")
    
    slight revision of quote after the animal, vegie, and mineral part.
    
    		Some people believe because there unconscious reality
    		does. (unless we have consciously altered our unconscious)
    		this sometimes being the case (and i too am generalizing
    		heavily here) there is a rationale that tells us that
    		the closer to human the better.
    		Puppies are closer to human than quartz. They function
    		in ways that quartz cannot (keep the newspaper handy!).	
                This computer has an artificial puppy as its basis!
    		(files always dont "go" where they are supposed to either!)
    		Our brains contain a puppy too! (id, shadow, ect) which
    		we aparently blame when we "go" somewhere or do something
    		that we didn't intend. We are discussing a brand new ideas
    		(to us) and we are using brand new tools (ourselves)
    		with brand new rules (?). Some may say that some tools
    		are more useful than others. I think it has more to
    		do with what craft or art or concept you are working
    		toward. The tools you chose on your, path and their
    		use, is up to the craftsman (you).
    			A computer is a tool yet someone who knows nothing
    		of its use will throw it away. A lump of silver is nice
    		but a silversmith can cast it into a thing of beauty.
    		Possibly... it isn't an object itself that determins
    		its worth,  but perhaps the value equals the opinions
    		of what others percieve its worth to be.
    			an artist might think that a Camel-Hair brush
    		is the best tool... another might scientifically believe
    		and prove that a large brush is better since it covers
    		more space. And another might work with garbage and
    		trash thinking that it dosent matter what you use as
    		long as you place the desired effect on the viewer.;-)
    
    	Ref the chairs...
    		Are we talking work or are we talking comfort?
    (whew!)
    craig
    		
           

    Re .40 (Dave):
    
    > Also, is a ball really a valid form to utilise "crystal" anyhow?
    >Surely, the very process of machining (?) the ball artificially
    >terminates the crystalline structure -   ....
    
    No.  The internal lattice structure remains; the end points are
    merely gone.  Analogy: if you cut the ends off an egg carton, you'd
    still have places in the middle that would hold eggs.
    
    Re piezoelectricity:
    
    As noted elsewhere, piezoelectricity transforms mechanical energy
    to electrical.  It doesn't manufacture energy from nowhere.
    
    Re "electric fields" around quartz:
    
    Quartz can in some cases be used like a rectifier in an
    electrical/electronic circuit.  However, here, it transforms some
    sort of _dynamic_ activity (e.g., a radio station's broadcast) into
    a (generally changing) electrical potential ("detection" as a crystal
    in a crystal set).  Put it in, say, the strongest steady magnetic
    field possible in a shielded area and let it lay there, and you
    should find no trace of an electrical field.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

REP .39 (Frederick)

    >  Back to the differences between glass and quartz...The quartz
    crystals are "alive."  They have a very definite structure that
    resembles DNA (RNA) and blood, i.e., there is a spiraling of energy in
    30 degree turns.  < 
                           
    
Wanna run that one by me again?  That's like saying Rodin's "The Thinker" is
alive because it resembles a human (which it does far more so than quartz
resembles DNA!). 


    > This computer (as pointed out in an earlier reply) has an artificial
    crystal as its basis. < 
    
    
A computer is no more "based" on a quartz crystal than your body is based
on your heart.  Many, many, crystalline substances are used in electronic
systems, with none being more important than another.  Indeed, without the
glass that your reply seems to hold as somehow inferior to quartz, there
would be no CRT for you to read on; to say nothing of all the glass that
might be used internally. 

                     
    
    > Our brains contain structured silicon which apparently we also use
    for "storage."  < 
    
    
Where in the world did you read that?!


    >  It is not random "glass" in either of these cases. We can
    communicate with this structure.  < 
                                       
    
"Communicate?"  Most people can't even tell the difference between quartz
and glass.

    
    
    >  We are on this physical plane using physical tools.  Some of the
    tools are more useful than others, and, therefore, quartz crystal tools
    are more useful than the leaded glass "tools."  < 
                                                     
    
Glass is far, far, more useful to humans than quartz.  If you don't believe
me, take a look around.

I once read that the crystal gazers use the ball as something to focus their
attention on, as some people use a flame in meditation.   The composition of
the ball has nothing to do with it.

John M.
    

re; .43

                           
>"Communicate?"  Most people can't even tell the difference between quartz
>and glass.

Believe it or Not...when you've picked up a whole bunch of each, you can. Or at 
least, I can.
    
>Glass is far, far, more useful to humans than quartz.  If you don't believe
>me, take a look around.

Yeah, so far, but think of this; if we knew how to make quartz windows, our 
windows would be much stronger.  ;-)

>I once read that the crystal gazers use the ball as something to focus their
>attention on, as some people use a flame in meditation.   The composition of
>the ball has nothing to do with it.

I get different results from gazing into different types of spheres.  Color, 
inclusions, and whatever-it-is-you-call-the-"clouds"-in-spheres-like-obsidian 
(reflective material stuff that uses light "real neat-o", like tiger's eye) 
make me feel different ways, different things.  Fire, same deal.  I can't 
remember details, but some prison cells are being painted light pink because of 
the soothing effect it has been psychologically noted to have on prisoners.  
Rose quartz is considered to be the emotional balancer.  Purple is a "psychic" 
or magical color to many; I suppose this is associated with the crown chakra/
third eye chakra, which is purple; thus, amethyst is the psychic/third-eye 
activator.  Et cetera, et al, ad infinitum.  The composition of the ball, for 
me, at least, does have something to do with it.  Would colored glass work the 
same?  I don't know; I've never tried!  I like quartz because it is much 
harder.  I tend to be rough with my stuff.  Which is why you would enjoy my 
slaps ;-) ;-) ;-)

Meredith

    Hmmmm, are we getting slap happy here?  :-)
    
    	- Bill

    re: -.1
      
         Maybe we're just slapping balls around...
    
    re: .41
      
         For the most part I am in accord with what you say, especially
    about the tools.
    
    re: .43 (Anchovy-'pits)
    
         I claim that crystals are "alive" (notice the quotes, John)
    because they "grow"  Unlike other minerals, but like plants and
    animals, not only do they require exact conditions, but they grow
    into an apparent "predetermined" size and shape.  "The Thinker"
    may cause you to think and may therefore be more human for you
    (especially since it is in the form of a human) but it did not grow
    into its shape of *its* own volition.  Again, check out the spiral
    of a DNA or RNA molecule, a blood molecule and a crystal molecule
    and then report back (but first compare them to other molecules,
    specifically glass.)  And computers?  Of course there are many 
    components...even *I* am not that shallow ;-}...but the basic premise
    came from a need to reproduce an on/off state...a condition handily
    met by the crystals in question.  The brain is also composed of
    many elements, notably silicon (which is one of the two main
    ingredients of a crystal, surprise, surprise!)  The cells of the
    brain are clearly structured, again unlike glass and again in similar
    "fashion" to quartz crystals.  
         As for communicating, see .44.  Not only can sensitive people
    distinguish between glass and quartz, they can distinguish one
    crystal from another (and not based on shape/size, etc.)  
         As for tools, you are right using your interpretation of what
    I wrote...I didn't make that very clear.  What I meant to say (and
    what I had taken for granted given the context of this topic) is
    that crystals are better tools METAPHYSICALLY than leaded glass.
     
         Incidentally, your last paragraph was very well stated and
    I agree with it wholeheartedly.  It was precisely that point that
    I was attempting to make to Meredith.  You said it better, however.
    Anything can be useful as a device to help in focusing, it is just
    that a quartz crystal, all else being equal, is probably more
    appropriate than leaded glass.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Comment on the pink prison cells....
    
    I read a followup study done on this, and while the prisoners were
    calmed by the color pink in the short term, it turns out that pink
    is in the 'red' family, and therefore it caught up with the prisoners
    in the long run as they started to get hostile after being exposed
    to pink for the longer length of time.
    
    Wish I could remember the rest of the article...can anyone help
    here?.  I seem to recall that it was found that greens and blues
    were more calming in the longer term and so that's what the prison
    cells were painted in after that, though am not 100% sure on this.
    
    Cindy

RE .46 (Frederick)
    
    Lot's of handwaving here, Frederick, not much substance (crystaline
    or otherwise :-).
    
    While crystals do have a predetermined shape (or more accurately,
    a shape which they will assume in the absence of external or internal
    disturbing forces) they do not have a predetermined size in any
    meaningful sense.  The larger they become, however, the more sensitive
    they become to external disruption which does tend to set an upper
    limit to their size -- but note that the size they reach is always
    determined by "outside" forces.
    
    Planets grow, stars grow, continents grow, glaciers grow, dust piles
    grow, sand dunes grow.  Lots of things grow given the right conditions.
    If you meant that crystals grow why didn't you say that rather than
    that they are "alive" (with us left to just know somehow that the
    quotes meant that all the other attributes of living systems were
    not intended)?  You used a highly connotative word for a concept
    for which a much simpler, less inapproriately connotative word existed.
    
    A crystal no more acts under its own "volition" than a rock rolling
    down a hill.  Is the pile of debris at the foot of a mountain also
    "alive"?  Relatively simple forces act to bring an ensemble of atoms
    into a state of (local or global) minimum energy -- a crystal.
    
    A terminological nit -- DNA, RNA and hemoglobin (which is what I
    assume you mean by a "blood molecule") do not form "spirals" (a
    2-D shape) they form helixes (3-D shapes) and, in the case of DNA
    and RNA double helixes.
    
    If crystals form spirals OR helixes there are a h*ll of a lot of
    crystalography text books which will have to be rewritten.
    
    Silicon dioxide crystals (quartz) are not at all the same as silicon
    crystals -- the basis of computer circuitry.  The role of silicon
    dioxide in computer circuitry is its use as an insulator and as
    the basis of the high speed time signal used to keep everything
    synchronous.
    
    Silicon is a trace element used throughout the body.  It is needed
    in much smaller quantities than most essential trace elements and
    rather small quantities, if absorbed, are poisonous.  Unlike, e.g.,
    calcium, I know of nothing which associates silicon with either
    the unique function or organization of brain cells.  If you do,
    I would be interested.
    
    The cells of the brain are structured.  Glass is ill structured.
    Quartz crystal is structured, but not particularly like the brain.
    Ice is also structured.  So is a kettle of boiling water.  So are
    the air currents above a hot radiator.  So is every atom (indeed
    all the other orders mentioned are simply macroscopic reflections
    of the order of atomic structure).  What are we exected to conclude
    from this?
    
    Perhaps we should be concluding that glass, since it is frozen in
    a collection of states representing a local energy minimum far above
    the global energy minimum represented by a pure crystal is far more
    effective source of psychic energy.  We can conclude that for someone
    really in tune a glass ball is going to work much better than a
    ball of substance from which all the energy has been allowed to
    escape.  (No smily face because I am making a serious point -- if
    you are allowed to freely choose the connections between the psychic
    and the physical you can justify any belief about psychic reality
    which you want with scientific facts).
    
    Here is a challenge.  Take some quartz objects and some similar
    glass objects.  Put them in opaque boxes made of any substance
    which you feel is "non-insulating".  Fix the objects so they don't
    slide.  Include a fair amount of empty space and some neutral filler
    so that the boxes will have the same weight but not have signifcantly
    different sounds when tapped.  My claim -- sensitive people will
    be able to distinguish between the boxes only at roughly the same
    level as found in most clairvoyance tests (i.e., very small by
    most human standards).
    
    Nothing you have said implies that quartz crystal should be any
    better than leaded glass at focusing attention (a purely psychological
    rather than "metaphysical" function).
    
    						Topher

    Re .48 (Topher):
    
    I'm in substantial agreement with you, but a nit or two --
    
    >If crystals form spirals OR helixes there are a h*ll of a lot of
    >crystalography text books which will have to be rewritten.
     
    Yes, but [ah, the "but" :-)] for "growing" some kinds of artificial
    crystals, the lattice is deformed so that a spiral, _artificially
    induced_ structure can form.  I believe they "grow" ruby rods this
    way.  The natural crystal has a natural lattice (possibly offset
    or disrupted locally by inclusions).
    
    >Perhaps we should be concluding that glass, since it is frozen in
    >a collection of states representing a local energy minimum far above
    >the global energy minimum represented by a pure crystal is far more
    >effective source of psychic energy. ...
     
    Nice.  However, to keep in the "spirit" of the thing, maybe the
    response would be that the _least_ internal energy, the better.
    That being the case, the best "crystal ball" would be a diamond
    sphere.  [Maybe that's why the Hope Diamond has a history as a "bad
    luck" possession.] (No smiley face either, _if_ one accepts the
    crystal as a receptor/channeler.)
    
    One cannot have it both ways: if molecular-level energy is a
    consideration, then a glass sphere would be a better energy _source_
    than a quartz sphere.
    
    >Here is a challenge.  Take some quartz objects and some similar
    >glass objects.  Put them in opaque boxes made of any substance
    >which you feel is "non-insulating".  ...
     
    I'd add acrylic _and_ opaque (metallic) in additional boxes.  And
    make it a double-blind test.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    re: .48
     
         To tell you the truth, I'm not that much into crystals,
    at least not yet...also, it's been 15 years or more since I studied
    Physiology, Zoology, Comparative Development, Biology and Health.
    And if I remember correctly, I never got an "A" in any of those.
    I *did*, however, get an "A" in Sex Education. ;-)
    
         The point is that I do not remember the intricacies of hemoglobin
    or RNA or DNA...certainly not enough to argue the rationales.  But
    it seems fairly clear that quartz crystals have a spiraling of energy
    (or "helixing", if you prefer.)  THAT is more important to the
    discussion than the actual comparison of molecule to molecule. 
    The spiraling seems precise enough to distinguish it from the glass
    we were discussing earlier.  As for brain cells, is not silica an
    important portion of their existence?  If so, is not silicon an
    important part, as well?  And the use of silicon in computers certainly
    seems to lend itself to life, does it not?  I.e., "artificial"
    intelligence is supposedly the next step in computing (beyond just
    more and faster.)  AND, if there were such a thing as living mineral,
    who would be qualified in recognizing it or understanding it?  We
    certainly spend a great deal of time in science fiction thinking
    up all kinds of intelligences which don't in any way resemble humans.
    I could easily cop out and say "yeah, I meant it how you suggested,"
    but the truth is I meant it to be read ALIVE (but unrecognized as
    such.)  Bull-Shot?  Maybe.  Who says that they do not predetermine
    their "everything?"  You're arguing cause and effect here and I
    do not happen to agree with the consensus reality interpretation
    of cause and effect.  Moreover, a crystal has very limited uses.
    Unlike other "life" forms, which can do many, many things and
    fulfill many roles, crystals are only good for some of the things
    *we* are ascribing to them (or, of course, we could reduce that
    to a matter of simply being useful as ornamentation.)  And I agree
    that there are infinite microcosms within macrocosms within...and
    that they all seem to be structured [as a result of thought, no
    doubt...but this is straying further away...]  But the idea here
    is that a quartz crystal (as previously pointed out in terms of
    Piezo-electrical capacity) can gather and store energy...unlike
    glass.  Does it store psychic energy?  If one isn't tuned to psychic
    energy, then it probably wouldn't be noticed by that person.
    On the other hand, those who claim that tuning say otherwise.
        Again, I agree with what John said about using objects as a
    way to focus.  That isn't what the distinction here is, though.
    
    re: .49 
        I will gladly accept any and all diamonds as gifts to be used
    in my meditations.  ;-)  Actually, I have two diamonds in my teeth
    (yes, you read that right.)  [whatever that has to do with it...]
    Anyway, I was not talking about molecular level energy.  I just
    think it is interesting to note that the application of that energy
    (in the quartz) has the strong resemblance (in its spirals) to 
    the manifestation of energy in biology.
        And as for your double-blind test:  Isn't it interesting that
    people keep wanting to do experiments this way?  The single blind
    developed because it was determined that experimenters had an
    influence (of unknown origin) on the subject(s.)  The double-blind
    developed because it was determined that the experimenter should
    not have any idea of what the testing was to be about. (In other
    words, that reality is objective, when it would appear that there
    is no such thing as an objective reality; i.e., reality is very
    much subjective.)  In any case, if that influence of "unknown
    origin" exists between the person conceiving the experiment and
    his/her/their subject(s), then it would stand to rationalization
    that that inflence exists beyond the scope of any number of "blinds."
    That the results change, does not change the likelihood of this
    premise.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .50 (Fredrick):
    
    > ....................................... I.e., "artificial"
    >intelligence is supposedly the next step in computing (beyond just
    >more and faster.)  ...
     
    "Artificial Intelligence," as it's used in the computing field,
    is something of a misnomer.  It's actually more like "autosorting"
    than thinking.
    
    > .............  AND, if there were such a thing as living mineral,
    >who would be qualified in recognizing it or understanding it? ...
    
    Probably another crystal. :-)
    
    >Moreover, a crystal has very limited uses.
    
    According to John M., practically none. :-D
    
    Seriously, why equate "life" with "use"?
    
    >Unlike other "life" forms, which can do many, many things and
    >fulfill many roles, crystals are only good for some of the things
    >*we* are ascribing to them (or, of course, we could reduce that
    >to a matter of simply being useful as ornamentation.)
     
    That's our human limitation.  Perhaps crystals can do many things
    we cannot dream of, if they're alive.
    
    > ... a quartz crystal (as previously pointed out in terms of
    >Piezo-electrical capacity) can gather and store energy...unlike
    >glass.  ...
     
    Ahem.  No, it doesn't "gather and store energy."  Its piezoelectrical
    characteristics provide that _if it is stressed in the right way_,
    it can ==>convert<== mechanical energy into electrical.  This is
    not stored; it's just transforned.  In some cases, quartz can act
    as a rectifier, _transforming_ ambient energy such as radio broadcasts
    into an electrical potential.  It is not being _stored_, just
    transformed. 
    
    >    And as for your double-blind test:  Isn't it interesting that
    >people keep wanting to do experiments this way?  The single blind
    >developed because it was determined that experimenters had an
    >influence (of unknown origin) on the subject(s.) ...
     
    No, the origin was known.  It's a variety of the "Clever Hans"
    phenomenon.  If the tester knows which box is which, he or she might
    _unconsciously_ give clues as to which object was in which box,
    and the test subject might read the "body language," also
    unconsciously.  The chance of that happening is minimized through
    a double-blind test.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .50 (Frederick)
    
    > It seems fairly clear...
    
    I can accept that such a "spiraling of energy" may exist, but keep
    in mind 1) it is *not* clear to everyone, not even all "sensitives",
    2) There is no physical evidence for it 3) Specifically, the energy
    which gives crystals their form and which causes quartz crystal
    to be piezoelectric does not have such a form.
    
    > The spiraling seems precise enough to distinguish...
    
    Only if you can perceive it.
    
    > Is not silica an important portion of their existence?
    
    No.
    
    > And the use of silicon in computers certainly seems to lend itself
    > to life, does it not?  I.e., "artificial" intelligence ...
    
    Silicon happens to be a convenient material for engineering reasons
    right now.  The whole point of artificial intelligence (supposedly
    an area where I "officially" have some expertise) is that intelligence
    (cognition) is a matter of pattern rather than substance.  If we
    could build an artificial intelligence in silicon we could build
    it with beads on sticks (it would, of course take centuries to think
    a single thought).  By the time we can realistically say that
    artificial intelligence is what we are doing rather than what we are
    trying to do there is a good chance that silicon will have been
    retired (in favor of germanium, or organic conductors, or the
    new high critical temperature superconductors, or whatever).
    
    Furthermore you are confusing "intelligence" with life (and probably
    with consciousness).  Life can certainly exist without intelligence.
    And if AI means anything (an open question) than intelligence can
    exist without life.
    
    > if there were such a thing as a living mineral, who would be
    > qualified to recognize it...?
    
    Define life and I'll answer the question.  If no one is qualified
    to recognize it, in what sense is it life?
    
    > I could easily cop out and say "yeah, I meant it the way you
    > suggested...
    
    I don't remember suggesting any way that you meant it.  I was
    responding to your statements about what you meant when you said
    that a crystal was "alive" (your quotes).
    
    > <A rather odd discussion equating life with usefullness>
    
    The summary says it all.
    
    > ... a quartz crystal ... can gather and store energy ... unlike
    > glass.
    
    Any substance can gather and store energy by lifting it up.  Any
    substance with any degree of compressional elasticity (which very
    much includes glass) can gather and store energy as the deformation
    of molecular bonds.  When you do that to the proper faces of a
    quartz crystal some of that deformation, for purely mechanical reasons,
    appears as an accumulated seperation of charges between two of the
    other faces.  If there is an electrical conductor connecting those
    two faces a current will flow.  The energy of that flow, a small
    precentage of the total deformation, is what is explicity *not*
    stored.  Glass stores that energy *better* than quartz.  Quartz
    converts energy where other substances would store it.  (Similarly,
    an electrical potential applied to the two faces results in a change
    of the shape of the crystal.  If the applied voltage is brief than
    only part of the crystal will be deformed, which induces a voltage
    in the part next to it, which induces deformation, etc. causing
    a wave.  This quickly dies out unless another brief voltage is applied
    at precisely the right time to reinforce it.  If the voltage is
    pulsed at exactly the right frequency it is reinforced by the crystal
    otherwise the crystal acts like an insulator.  This allows it to
    be used as a frequency standard for electric circuits, clocks and
    so on.)
    
    > Those who claim that tuning [to psychic energy] say otherwise.
    
    *Some* people who make that claim say otherwise.  Others say that
    glass is just as good psychically, and others claim that all substances
    hold psychic energy equally.  I do not agree that there is a concensus
    amoung "psychics".  Personally I believe that what you perceive is
    what you believe you *will* perceive.  Currently "crystals" are
    "in" in a way that they have not been for centuries.  Many sensitives
    subscribe currently to the belief system which you espouse, and
    therefore you will find many sensitives who perceive these matters
    as you do.  It is a matter of direct personal observation that not
    all sensitives do.
    
    					Topher

    
    Well, at the Halloween party, I put my (skeptical) left index finger
    up to the point of a crystal and most definitely felt something.
    I've since purchased my own crystal and this experience has been
    repeated many times over.
    
    I feel something, but I sure can't explain it, nor can I prove it.
    
    For what it's worth.
    
    Cindy

    re .53 (Cindy):
    
    >I feel something, but I sure can't explain it, nor can I prove it.
    
    I don't Topher is disagreeing with you.
    
    There's a problem here, and that's in (usually unconsciously)
    stretching a terminology to where it no longer may actually apply.
    In the case of "energy," this is especially difficult because there
    are so many forms of "it."  For example, there's kinetic,
    electrostatic, potential, ... and they may all be the same (in some
    ways) but different in others.
    
    "Psychic energy" is something that many feel exists (in one or
    more forms), but it hasn't been detected scientifically in any
    quantifiable way.  [This neither argues for nor against the _existence_
    of psychic energy, BTW.]  Assuming it exists, therefore, there are
    certain things we might _know_ about it, or sense, but there's no
    equivalent of Ohm's Law, Maxwell's equations, or the like.  In short,
    without a mathematical analog, it's difficult to make quantifiable
    predictions about it, like you can do about the strength and flux
    density of a magnetic field.
    
    Now if you quote (or even partially quote) something
    scientific/technical, that's okay; but if you then extend the analogy
    to explain a not-understood paranormal effect, you're probably treading
    on thin ice.  In another note, I mentioned that someone claimed
    that a television signal left the station and went into a "higher
    dimension" until "called" by a television set.  Sounds semitechnical;
    however, it's rubbish.  The mechanism of television could be talked
    about for days, but any electronic engineer could explain the basic
    principles without any mysticism (though someone with an arcane
    bent might get a momentary tingle when he or she heard the term
    "phantom sideband" -- but only momentary, because the explanation
    is absurdly simple if you understand the concepts of sidebands to
    begin with).  
    
    And that's what we're trying to avoid here: we want to make sure
    that terminology doesn't muddy the waters rather than clarifying
    them.
    
    Sterve Kallis, Jr.

.54  Sterve

>   ........................................... we want to make sure
>   that terminology doesn't muddy the waters rather than clarifying
>   them.

So that's why you've been supplying all those definitions  ;')

Jay

Of all the nerve, Sterve. ;-)

(I could've resisted, but didn't want to!)

    Re "Sterve":
    
    See what happens when you're writing when you're hungry?  ;-)
    
    Re .56 (Meredith):
             
    Just for that:
    
    > ... "We are the otters of the Universe"
    
    You otter be. :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Here's why we need "blind" and "double blind" conditions in
    experiments.
    
    First off, we need to say what this means. "Single blind" means that
    the "subject" hasn't been told what result is expected.  "Double
    blind" means that any experimenters who are actively involved in
    the experiment -- particularly who come in contact with the subject
    -- don't know what specific result is expected.
    
    Why do we require this?
    
    Let us use as an illustration an experiment to test the accuracy
    of a "map dowser" or "remote dowser".  A map dowser, instead of
    walking around at a location with their dowsing rod in order to
    find something (say an ore deposit) uses a small dowsing rod (or
    pendulum) on a map of the region.  When the stick dips, the spot
    pointed to is taken to be the site of the ore deposit.
    
    If a map is given to a map dowser where the dowser *knows* where
    ore is located, or where mines are marked on the map, they will
    succeed a very high percentage of the time.  As a matter of fact,
    if they are lead to believe that there are ore deposits where there
    aren't any, they will find the non-existent deposits.
    
    Some self-proclaimed skeptics would claim that the dowser had
    "obviously" faked it.  But generally it seems that the dowser honestly
    believes that they did *not* consciously cause the stick to dip.
    Their behavior is consistent with that, sometimes to their detriment
    (e.g., even after you have told them that the location marked as
    having a mine does not, they might wish to invest money into getting
    the ore out that they "know" is there).
    
    So you repeat the experiment with a map of another region, this
    time making sure that the subject (who, in ESP experiments, is
    frequently called the percipient, i.e., the person who perceives)
    is not given clues either from the map, from previous knowledge
    of the area or from things that you say about it.  What happens
    then?
    
    Well, the success rate drops way down -- clear to chance levels
    for many percipients.  But some percipients continue to do much
    better than chance -- although not as well as in the first experiment.
    So what is happening?  Do these percipients truly have clairvoyance?
    
    Well, seemingly not.  If the experimenter who is supervising is
    an assistant who has been mislead about the locations of the "actual"
    deposits, it will once again be the "fake" locations which the
    percipient is likely to find.  Ah!  But if not clairvoyance perhaps
    telepathy?
    
    Once again, seemingly not, or if so it is a very oddly limited form
    of telepathy.  If the experimenter stands behind the percipient
    and masking sounds are fed through earphones or speakers to the
    percipient their success rate plumets.
    
    It seems that they are picking up subtle body-language queues from
    the experimenter.  For example, when the dowsing rod comes near
    to the site the experimenter "knows" is a correct one, (s)he is
    likely to get somewhat excited -- after all, whether or not the
    rod drops is about to be discovered.  They may respond by breathing
    faster, by straightening a bit, by leaning forward slightly, by
    their pupils dilating slightly, etc.  The percipient can pick up
    on these cues and use them to play "hot and cold" to locate the
    putative ore sites.
    
    This kind of unconscious signalling can be spotted fairly easily
    in video tapes, and many people have learned to notice such indications
    consciously (the traditional term for this in magician and psychic
    entertainer's circles is "muscle reading" although "muscles" are
    only one thing that the magician pays attention to).  Generally,
    however, the percipients are honestly unaware of the source of their
    information.
    
    So what happens when even the experimenter doesn't know what the
    "right" answer is?  When for example, the map is of an unexplored
    region and a correct answer is only found by going out and digging
    at the site indicated?  (In other words, when the experiment is
    performed double blind).
    
    Well, then the number of correct answers drops even further, but
    for some percipients, it doesn't fall all the way to chance levels.
    At least under the conditions of laboratory tests, the number of
    right answers is rarely very impressive to people and is much smaller
    than the percipients expect but are enough above chance that they
    cannot be explained as simply an accident.
    
    Skeptics claim that it can simply be assumed that there is some
    ordinary source of information which has not been eliminated.  It
    is unneccessary, they say, for them to demonstrate that such a
    source of information exists, rather it is up to the experimenter
    to *prove* that it does not (which is clearly, logically impossible).
    
    I think that this is nonesense and certainly not skepticism in the
    original sense of the word.  It is blind acceptance of the conventional
    view of things despite evidence to the contrary.
    
    So how do I interpret these experiments?  (I guess it is worth pointing
    out here that, to the best of my knowledge, this particular series
    of experiments has never actually been done.  Rather I am presenting
    a composite account of thousands of experiments involving many
    different types of clairvoyance, not just map dowsing)
    
    I think that the most direct interpretation of these experiments
    is that what people think of as one or more "psychic" senses is
    really a channel of information from their subconscious.  Their
    subconscious collects that information from many sources: from
    what is consciously known, what is expected, what is desired, what
    is seen/heard/felt/smelled/tasted (even if not consciously noticed),
    what is remembered (even if not consciously remembered) what is
    deduced (what I refer to as "the Sherlock Holmes in our heads")
    *and what is learned via ESP* (whatever that really is).  The
    subconscious collects and itegrates all of this information and
    gives the psychics conscious the best overall answer it is able
    to.
    
    So if we want to be sure that what we are getting is ESP or sensitivity
    to non-physical energy or whatever, we need to use a double-blind
    experiment in order to eliminate other sources of information to
    the subconscious.  Because, as near as we have been able to discover,
    "psychics" are unable to distinguish knowledge gained by ESP from
    knowledge gained from other sources: why should they, after all,
    since what is important to them is the best answer, not how they
    got it.
    
    					Topher

    Old Chinese proverb:
    
    "Man with crystal balls never ride horse."
                        
    
    (I couldn't resist either)
                             
    
    Bob
    

.58 Topher

Thanks. Several light bulbs lit while reading your reply.

>   I think that the most direct interpretation of these experiments
>   is that what people think of as one or more "psychic" senses is
>   really a channel of information from their subconscious.  Their
>   subconscious collects that information from many sources: from
>   what is consciously known, what is expected, what is desired, what
>   is seen/heard/felt/smelled/tasted (even if not consciously noticed),
>   what is remembered (even if not consciously remembered) what is
>   deduced (what I refer to as "the Sherlock Holmes in our heads")
>   *and what is learned via ESP* (whatever that really is).  The
>   subconscious collects and itegrates all of this information and
>   gives the psychics conscious the best overall answer it is able
>   to.

It appears to me that some people seem to have more of a psychic ability
than others. Toph, do you think this is a "gift", or do you feel *anyone*
can develop this? Is it within everyone's ability to be psychic given an
understanding of the mechanism?

Jay

    re:  Steve and Topher
    
          Okay, I eat it on making attempts to validate known
    forms of energy in favor of quartz over glass.  You guys are
    far better suited to the "science" than I am.  And yes, I should
    have distinguished between uses and life.  Actually, I cannot
    prove (as with so much of metaphysics) life in crystals.  If 
    this had been done, you certainly would have heard about it from
    someone other than me.  But I still find it interesting that 
    quartz glass seems to resemble "organic" or carbon-based life
    in many ways in which glass does not.  I am simply unable to 
    "defend" this position much more than I have at the present. If
    I learn anything more, I'll pass it on.
    
         As for double-blind tests, I understand perfectly well what
    that entails; that description wasn't necessary for me (although
    I accept the correction on origin.)  There is a big problem here,
    though, and it comes from the refusal to accept the "create your
    own reality" philosophy on the part of both of you.  It is very
    clear from my perspective that you both wish to harbor cause and
    effect thoughts.  In other words, this causes that, etc.  I no longer
    share that view.  I believe that effects come first, then causes.
    This comes from the future creating the present.  Not the past creating
    the present which the double-blind descriptions you gave are part
    and parcel to.  I don't care how many visible signs there may or
    may not be.  While wonderfully scientific, I believe that there
    is a higher truth than that.  So, for now (I want to go home) I
    will leave it at that.  To reiterate, I believe that double-blind
    tests are a nice effort, but they don't wash.
      
        One more point about the crytals (by way of repetition) and
    that is that it is fair to say that a crystal's ability to store
    psychic energy has not been conclusively shown nor disproven
    scientifically.  I think both of you allow for this. I don't think
    that highly of science, though, so for me that doesn't mean too
    much.
    
    Frederick
    (have a nice weekend, peeples)
     

    Re .61 (Fredrick):
    
    >....................... But I still find it interesting that 
    quartz glass seems to resemble "organic" or carbon-based life
    in many ways in which glass does not. ...
    
    If you'd just said something like, "Both a living being and quartz
    have structure and organization, whereas glass doesan't," I don't
    think there would've been any controversy.  One problem, though,
    is if you reason by analogy, you're always walking on a shaky bridge:
    if a support goes, so does the bridge.
    
    >................................................. Actually, I cannot
    >prove (as with so much of metaphysics) life in crystals.
     
    Nor should you have to.  If you say you believe, or intuit, that
    crystals are alive (or even "alive"), that puts it into a matter
    of faith.  
    
    >     As for double-blind tests, I understand perfectly well what
    >that entails; that description wasn't necessary for me (although
    >I accept the correction on origin.)  There is a big problem here,
    >though, and it comes from the refusal to accept the "create your
    >own reality" philosophy on the part of both of you. ...
     
    On the double-blind tests: okay, so you understand the structure
    and reasoning of them.  Perhaps some other readers didn't, so I
    don't think the effort was wasted.
    
    On the "problem":  Ah, but whose "problem" is it?  Topher and I
    aghree on their being an objective aspect to reality; we're both
    well-grounded in Western science.  We do understand about symbolism
    and subjective interpretatrions of reality.  There are some
    metaphysical areas where Topher and I don't see eye-to-eye, but
    that doesn't mean that we find a problem with each other on it.
    Your beliefs are significantly different from ours [though if the
    future creates the present, isn't _that_ a cause-and-effect, though
    we're experiencing it backwards? :-)], but you're entitled to them.
    The area of difficulty, such as it is, is when one tries to use
    material arguments to plead the case for metaphysical conclusions,
    and vice versa.
    
    >.......... I don't care how many visible signs there may or
    >may not be.  While wonderfully scientific, I believe that there
    >is a higher truth than that. ...
     
    Fine.  But that your beliefs hold certain things as self-evidernt
    doesn't necessarily preclude anyone else from holding contrary views.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I remember hearing about a year ago about some testing done on
    crystals using Kirlian Photography.  If I remember correctly they
    found that crystals had very interesting auric patterns, suggesting
    a definite energy within crystals...  They also found energy fluctuations.
    I'll see if I can found out more about it.  If anyone else has heard 
    this, please reply....
    
    Linda

    Re .63 (Linda):
    
    Since quartz can act as a "transformer" of energies (electrical
    into mechanical, rectification, etc.), and since the basis of Kirlian
    photography is a high-frequency radiomagnetic fierld (sort of a
    modified Tesla device), it filliws that a quartz crystal could
    demonstrate interesting discharge patterns in a Kirlian arrangement.
    Whether this implies a "quartz aura" is something else again.
    
    Worth mentioning: though we're not ordinarily aware of it, we're
    in a virtual sea of radiofrequency radiation.  Every radio transmitter
    (AM, FM, television, CB, fire, police, aviation, shortwave, service
    [such as business dispatch], _and_ the IF stages of radio/TV recveiving
    equipment) adds to this.  This means there's plenty of electromagnetic
    energy around to interact with crystals, be they quartz or galena.
     Some of the "energies" thus found might disappear if the quartz
    crystal under investigation is examined in a shielded area.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .60 (Jay)

    That's a good question, and like most good questions there is no simple
    answer (or rather the only simple answer is "I wish I knew" :-).

    One of the things which has been found about ESP is that it seems to
    be ridiculously sensitive to apparently small psychological factors.
    Almost any change in conditions may cause a large difference in
    results.

    In order to separate out psi from non-psi events in the "psychic"
    channel and to clearly distinguish that channel from the mere
    coincidence and the occasional fraud, parapsychological experiments
    have to be done in a rather artificial manner.

    Since it is not clear what effect these artificial conditions have on
    psi it is not clear what relationship psi-in-the-laboratory has to
    psi-in-real-life.  In practice you make the best judgment you can
    and then keep in mind that you could actually be talking about two
    different things.

    What we *know* is that some people do very much better than others
    in a specific ESP test.  It is also generally believed -- although
    I don't know of any systematic measurements to prove it -- that
    people who do well on one ESP test are more likely to do well on
    another than someone who did poorly on the first.

    Also, some people who feel that they make use of psychic abilities at
    least moderately better than the average do well on ESP tests and some
    don't.  There seems to be a general feeling by parapsychologists that
    they are more likely to do well than your average person but once
    again I don't know of any systematic measurements, and its very easy
    for anyone, including a parapsychologist, to fool themselves in
    something like this.  Furthermore, there is no way to tell whether
    the "psychic-in-life individuals" who do poorly on ESP tests do so
    because they really only make use of the non-psi part of the "psychic
    channel to the subconscious" or because they just don't respond well
    to the formal testing situation.

    So saying, the bad news is:

	To the best of my knowledge no one has demonstrated any training
	procedure which consistently allows people to do detectably better
	on ESP tests.

    As to what the "best of my knowledge" means, I am fairly certain that
    if such a proven training procedure exists than it is quite newly
    proven.

    The good news is that, for the reasons mentioned before, it is unclear
    how much this has to do with learning to use psi in real life.  It
    is clearly not applicable to generally learning to use the "psychic"
    channel to let the subconscious help you solve your problems better.
    Many people have learned to make better use of this through various
    training programs.

				    Topher

    
    I picked up a glass ball at a flea market Sunday afternoon and
    figure on using it as a focus for meditation and as a storage 
    place. 
    I cleaned it up (inside and out ;-)) and, over a period of time,
    will work on creating a shield around it. Keeping unwanted influences
    out and mine in. 
    	Q. I am aware and have done meditations looking into Crystal
    		balls with colored fabric as a backround. What other
    		methods of use are there for Spheres?
    
    "It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore."
    
    Craig

    Re .66 (Craig):
    
            >Q. I am aware and have done meditations looking into Crystal
    	    >	balls with colored fabric as a backround. What other
    	    >	methods of use are there for Spheres?
             
    Well, rather than _colored_ fabric, use black.  Do this in a darkened
    room with only indirect light (something on the order of a night
    light behind you would be ideal). If you put it on a stand (with
    or without fabric) make it a wooden one, not a metallic one.
    
    Meditations are okay, but I'd be wary of trying the ball to try
    to contact entities.  Crystal balls are designed to help focus things,
    and these go well beyond light rays.  I've heard some (though not
    many) use crystal balls as an aid in dowsing-type activities.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                            

    
    	Re: -.1   Steve K. Jr.
    
    	As far as using black for a backround, I have used that and
    its ok. However I am working with the Sephiroth and connecting paths
    and associated colors. (Kether is usually White, Tiphereth can be
    Rose, or Yellow depending on variables used ect...) 
    	By putting the proper color behind the ball and using it, like
    you said, "as a magnifying glass" I have another tool for working
    paths. 
    	I also think it will be interesting to see what "relationship"
    forms between the ball and myself upon completion of the 32 or 34
    (lets not forget Daath) Sephiroth and paths.
                                                                   
    	any other uses for "Crystal Balls"???
    	                      
    (no one liners please!)    8-P
                           
    Craig

    Re .68
    
    Craig,
    
    I'm not familiar with "the Sephiroth". Any chance you, or anyone
    else knowledgeable, could put a brief description in here or in
    a new note. Sounds interesting.
    
    Thanks, Dave.

    
    RE: .69 Dave
         
    TREE OF LIFE
    	 *            Well Dave,
     *	     *           Sephiroth are the little circles (*) on the
                     the "Tree of Life" (note 441 has some stuff on
     *       *        this.). They are numbered 1 to 10 and correspond
         *            to the numerical meanings of the Kabballa (various
     *       *        spellings).
         *               There are lines connecting them and these are
    	 *            called "Paths" and correspond to the 22 Major Arcana
                     of the Tarot.
    	Different colors, sounds, images, smells, animals, lessons,
    ect. are attributed to each (*) Sphere, (Sephiroth). 
    	One who does "Pathworking" travels down the path, one at a time
    usually, in a semi-predetermined meditation experiance to learn
    more about himself (or herself) and the world around/within them.
    	Methods of meditation, power over the little buggers, meaning,
    ect all vary from person to person (I have found) so if I go into
    any more detail it most likely wont be very helpful.
    
    Craig                                                
    		

re; Dave;

>    a brief description in here or in
>    a new note. Sounds interesting.

Chris offers some good, brief basics.  There is also the philosophy which 
suggests (Dion Fortune's _Mystical Quaballah_) that each path is also a 
Sephira.

A good book with which to begin study is _Middle Pillar_ by Israel Regardie. Of 
course, check out any Kabalah/Quabalah/Qabalah section of a metaphysical 
bookstore, and see which book seems most understandable to you.

    I was so bemused by this advertisement I am impelled to put it
    here in its entirety.
    
    Don't ask me where I found it, I have no intention of enriching
    the people who make and distribute it.
    
    Pat
    
    ---
    
    ENLIGHTENMENT ON A MICROCHIP:
    THE WORLDS' FIRST ELECTRONIC CRYSTAL BALL
    
    A hush falls over the darkened room.  Reverently, you approach the
    mysterious orb.  "Am I destined to be Emperor of Earth?" you inquire,
    passing your hand above the sphere.  Seconds later, a disembodied
    voice rises from the crystal: "It will come to pass".  Flushed with
    impending regality, you invite all your friends to your coronation
    barbecue.
    
    A hit at any party, new Sound F/X - The Talking Crystal Ball (TM)
    probes far into the cosmos to answer any question phrased for a
    yes or no response.  Don't tell your friends, but waving your hand
    over the sphere activates an infared sensor, triggering a built-in
    microprocessor that randomly selects one of 28 responses.  The
    synthesized male voice comes from a speaker concealed in the base.
    Or connect to your stereo (cord included) for amplified other-
    worldliness.
    
    The impressive looking, hand-blown glass globe is 7" in diameter.
    Sleek base is polished acrylic.  Measures 8 1/4 "H x 7"W x 6" D;
    weighs 2 lbs.  Runs on 4 C batteries or AC adapter (neither included).
    All solid-state with no moving parts to wear out.  90-day warranty.
    
    Now you can find out who's been faithful to whom, how your tax
    audit will turn out, and what your dog really thinks of your taste
    in clothes.  Order today.  While your friends labor over their
    outdated Ouiji Board, you can be divining the future at electronic
    speed.
    
    TALKING CRYSTAL BALL, $79.
    

    Re .72 (Pat):
    
    > . ...................................................... The
    >synthesized male voice comes from a speaker concealed in the base.
     
    How chauvenistic.
    
    >The impressive looking, hand-blown glass globe is 7" in diameter.
    
    Huh!  It isn't even _glass_ "crystal."  Nothing but hot air at the
    time of its manufacture. :-)
    
    >All solid-state with no moving parts to wear out.  90-day warranty.
    
    If nothing moves, what makes the sound?  Marbe there's something
    paranormal here after all. :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Sounds like a modern-day 8-ball to me!

    
    I happened to be down at the Copley Place with another DEJAVU
    participant a couple of months ago and we went into "The Sharper
    Image".  We saw the talking crystal ball and he asked it if he was
    destined to be Emperor of the Universe.
    
    The ball answered........
    
                                    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             
    
    
    
    
    		                  NO!

    Re .75 (Cindy):
    
    It takes "spheres" to come up with answers like that. ;-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.