Conference hydra::dejavu

    Thanks, Chris.  Those words needed to be said and you did so
    eloquently.
    
    Ro

    Thank you Chris for those few words. However you missed some of the
    players in the game. These are the ones who have no mystical powers
    whatsoever but claim them so that others will hold them in awe and
    envy. 

    Charlatans will always hamper any progress in the investigation of the
    paranormal, and unless you can flush them out and concentrate on the
    real evidence you are in for a hard slog.
    
    Jamie.

    Then there are other players in the game... those scientists who seem
    capable only of deceit and manipulation.  Who attempt to steer research
    to find the limits of a paranormal ... all the while degrading and
    jeering and attempting to deny that paranormal ability exists at all...
    
    Scientific hypocrites will always hamper any progress in the
    investigation of the paranormal, and unless you can flush them out and
    concentrate on those who are sincere in their search for truth, you are
    in for a hard slog.
    
    Mary

    	Can someone open a Mary & Jamie topic so they can carry on their
    disagreement away from what otherwise are very interesting discussions.
    I understand your differences but it seems you are both appearing in
    a lot of notes just to seemingly disprove & disapprove of each other's
    standpoints.
    
    
    

    I'm afraid you've missed some of the point Chris.
    
    I have a big problem understanding how people can make claims in here
    which are plainly stretching the bounds of credibility, and have them
    unreservedly accepted by a large number of the write/read noters.
    
    I question their statements simply because they are beyond the limits
    of reason. It's not confrontation at all, and however deeply help their
    belief or 'view' it doesn't make it any the less fabricated or
    self-delusory, when there is not a shred of evidence outside of that
    person's head. The blind acceptance of a statement by a person
    presented as fact, does not give that statement any more weight than
    would be given to an outright lie, by say a politician.
    
    If the world of the paranormal, in all its fields, wishes to be taken
    seriously, it will have to learn to differentiate between truth, and
    fiction. At present it appears that on the one hand we have a whole
    group of people fuelling the desires of another, with absolutely no
    evidence of truth on the side of the fuellers. Over-simplistic maybe,
    but real nevertheless, and something you should be aware of.
    
    Frankly, I simply cannot believe someone who tells me he/she meditated
    for a while, and as a result X happened, where X is a major world
    event.
    
    Nope, it's not confrontation, it's the quest for understanding. You
    see, I lack the ability to accept as absolute truth, everything I see,
    read or hear; a trait, I believe, you will discover is perfectly
    normal.
    
    Laurie.

                       <<< Note 1544.4 by NMSUV2::NAM >>>
                            -< Its getting boring >-

Aren't they cute at this age?    
    
    

    Who says.. that "the world of the paranormal" wishes to be "taken
    seriously"?
    
    What advantage is there to the psi to be taken seriously by the
    scientist?  I can see many disadvantages, but the advantages escape me.
    
    Why do you even care what we can or cannot do?  Whats it to you anyway?
    
    Why am I even discussing this with you?  I should just walk away and
    stop talking about it as Bruce suggested... the fourth power of the
    Sphinx.. silence...  

Re .0

I appreciate your desire for more moderate stances, though I doubt very much 
that the partisans of either camp will see much value in the other.  Still, 
this topic does a service by reminding readers that there are, after all,
middle-of-the-road views, not just a dichotomy.

Here's my part to help the peace effort:

In the tart noting that has gone on ever since that British tabloid published
a story about two men who claim to be the hoaxers behind the crop-circles
(Remember the crop circles?), there has been a lot of accusation and inuendo 
about the motives of people in both camps.  In the Philosophy conference, 
we call this "ad hominem attack."  We discourage it, not only because it leads
to lost tempers, but because it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity 
of the ideas in question.  Of course, this is not the Philosophy conference,
but ad hominem attacks remain irrelevant.

Just because a fool believes an idea, it does not follow that the idea is 
false.  Lots of fools believe lots of true things.  Just because someone 
believes an idea for bad motives, it does not follow that the idea is false.
A thief has a bad motive for believing that people do not see well in the dark 
and mostly sleep at night; his belief is still true.

Furthermore, we do not know the motives of other noters, and the network is 
not a great place for discovering them.

The YCYOR camp ("You Create Your Own Reality") may be motivated by base and 
childish desires for fantastic wish-fulfillment and power-lust.  On the other 
hand, they may be motivated by aspirations for the growth of the human spirit 
and the defeat of enslaving feelings of helplessness and humiliation.

The "materialist" camp may be motivated by fears of the bizarre or hatred of 
those who defy convention.  On the other hand, they may be moved by a desire 
to defend disciplines that they see as great achievements of the human spirit, 
or to deny the denials of a physical reality they see as too wonderful to be 
dismissed as a dream, or to warn folk away from what they see as madness.

To make matters more complicated, it is at least possible that both good and 
bad motives for belief or disbelief exist in the same mind at the same time.

So all in all, it is better to discuss issues rather than personalities,
unless you just like the entertainment value of a good loud row.
    
Re .5: Sure reads like a confrontation to me.
    
Earl Wajenberg

    The paranormal, by its nature, attracts many kinds of people. 

    Like me, some are skeptical. If someone says that a thing is true I
    require a little more than just that. However if something that I
    previously thought was impossible is proved possible I will believe it.
    I do after all, work near the leading edge of technology and what was
    impossible yesterday is often an established fact of today. Dealing
    with new concepts is a regular part of my life. 

    Others are charlatans who are attracted for self interest. This may
    take the form of power, fame, fortune or the like. They have no more
    abilities than the normal person. They deliberately cause confusion.

    Also attracted, and unfortunately we must face it, are those who are no
    longer sane. They cannot differentiate between reality and delusion.
    They cause confusion, but are blameless.

    Last are the people who may well have power to do things that we cannot.
    
    But how do we tell if they do not belong in the last two groups?

    The only way is to test them. 

    For example in the case of telepathy there are several standard tests.
    On a few occasions there have been outstanding results. In each case
    these have been proved to be frauds. Now if someone can pass this test
    I will begin to take the claims of telepathy seriously.

    Everyone who has ever taught me has always been prepared to show me
    evidence of the truth of their statements. For example my science
    teacher told me that water expanded if heated and then she went on to
    demonstrate it. She showed me that it contracted when cooled and then
    the surprising fact that the specific gravity of ice was less than that
    of water. She did not try to make me believe without proof.

    Please note that I am not attacking anyone in this reply, I am just
    stating the facts as they appear to me.

    Jamie.

    Once more, Jamie has summed up how I feel about it.
    
    I find it interesting that when confronted with a requirement to either
    prove or be disbelieved, those who claim a "gift" but do not possess it,
    always manage to find a way to avoid having to prove it. People who
    truly believe they have a gift will stand any inspection, and in the
    past, a few frauds have been exposed.
    
    This may take the form of denial of the need for proof, lack of the
    correct environment for proving, or some other reason, such as the lack
    of time or opportunity. The excuse itself matters not, but it always
    seems to be there.
    
    I have a very open mind, and all I await is for someone to prove to me
    that they can really do these things.
    
    As regards scepticism, well, if I were to say to a group of even quite
    small children that I could juggle 10 apples whilst tap-dancing, they
    naturally would expect me to do it. If I then claimed that I didn't
    have my lucky rabbit's foot, or the wrong shoes, or my feet ached, I
    would be heralded with hoots of derision and disbelief. The reaction
    from most adults would be even stronger.
    
    Why then, are Jamie and I considered odd because we refuse, for
    example, to believe someone's claim that they have the ability to
    influence world events, or that they can select unknown individuals the
    other side of the world, and force them to abandon all training,
    discipline etc., and do something they really shouldn't (in the context
    of their jobs) be doing? Why? I personally, think that it perfectly
    normal attitude to take, and that blind acceptance is something that
    even small children have to "learn".
    
    Laurie.

    Re Laurie,

    >Why then, are Jamie and I considered odd because we refuse, for
    >example to believe...

    Laurie, you may assume that most people accept blindly all things that
    are written in this conference. This could not be further from the
    truth. Many people have learned "flogging a dead horse" is not
    constructive...it is not necessary or obligatory to react to all
    stimuli.  
    
    An attempt is made not to react to things that you don't agree with. If
    you don't agree and you think the person is talking nonsense, you
    simply hit "next unseen". 

    There is no obligation to play "Devils Advocate", charged with the moral
    obligation of protecting the world from such heresy. We are mostly
    adults in here and can make up our minds what to accept, what to reject
    without hurting the feelings of the other person. Nobody in here is
    obliged to prove their standpoint, you may politely request but if they
    refuse, don't waste your energy, hit "next unseen". 
    
    Basic human nature imho: In your opinion, if someone is deluding
    themselves, it is most likely not constructive to shout out in public;
    "You are deluding yourself!" You will possibly force them futher into
    the delusion and they will reject what you say.
    
    	-Brian

    There is a Sufi story about the blind men and the elephant...
    
    	but you've all read *that* ... right?
    
    I agree with most of the base note. It would be more pleasant if folks
    just added their own opinions, making it clear that that's just what
    they are. "Hey, I've got what looks like a tail here, what have you got
    over there?" Not blindly accepting all the inputs that you get, but
    weighing them carefully based on your 'present understanding'.
    
    Personally, I'd rather not use terms like 'Charletan', 'Gullible', etc
    which would point more to my limitations than to others. That doesn't
    mean that I accept everything, far from it. But I also don't wish to
    offend others by offering character judgements based on expressed
    points of view.
    
    I feel, like others, a little sad to see conflict like this arise in
    such an open forum which has, at its best, been a place of growth, a
    veritable oasis.
    
    Love to you all,
    Brian

    I am mostly a read only noter.  I began reading DEJAVU because the 
    information was interesting and the conference itself always seemed to
    have a positive influence on me.
    
    I am very disappointed in the turn the conference seems to have taken.
    There is more confrontation than sharing of ideas and information.  I
    find that many times I have negative vibes after reading some of the
    recent notes.  I believe that these negative vibes are unhealthy to me.
    
    I agree with the right of both sides of the fence to represent their
    beliefs/opinions.  I don't necessarily believe that there is a need
    to defend these beliefs one way or the other.
    
    I have always respected the other persons point of view and read only
    those notes that would assist me in my growth and which I had a
    personal interest in.
    
    As a wise person once said, "Take what you need and leave the rest."
    That's my philosophy when reading any notesfile such as this with
    varied ideas and beliefs.
    
    I really hope that this conference begins to once again take a positive
    turn.  I enjoy the information/knowledge/opinions represented here.
    
    Deb

re Jamie, .9:

> Everyone who has ever taught me has always been prepared to show me
> evidence of the truth of their statements.

Yes, when you were ready to learn.

Perhaps a competent teacher in this field is no more able to teach us
this material than a high school science teacher could teach a
four-year-old about the gravitational constant. They could produce
evidence until the cows come home, but until the student has the
prerequisite background, not much learning can occur.

In the case of the science teacher and the 4-yr-old, the child may
demand to be shown the experiments with lead balls and such, but the
teacher knows that the only use of such a demonstration is to amuse the
child, and really accomplishes nothing along the lines of what it was
intended to accomplish. Perhaps the teacher has more pressing needs to
attend to, and decides that the child would not only better benefit ten
years in the future, but might be able to learn something about
patience, as well, by being put off in the present. The teacher knows
when and what to teach, not the student.

    
    Thank you, Mike.  You said it well.
    
    Cindy

RE: .9 (Jamie)

    Jamie, all that sounds very rational and fine -- but it is not in
    conformance with your behavior at times in this conference.  You spend
    all too much time making dogmatic, unsupported statements and attacking
    the people who disagree with you -- throwing around phrases like
    "gullible" and questioning peoples motives.  This is not the behavior
    of an open minded skeptic but of a crusader valiantly fighting for
    Truth, Justice and the Scientific Way.

    I hardly need to point out that openness to ideas in one area (such as
    electronics) has no bearing on whether someone is open to ideas in some
    area where they have an emotional commitment -- for example, in areas
    which challenge (even illogically) their religious (including anti-
    religious) beliefs.

    Lastly,

>    For example in the case of telepathy there are several standard tests.
>    On a few occasions there have been outstanding results. In each case
>    these have been proved to be frauds. Now if someone can pass this test
>    I will begin to take the claims of telepathy seriously.

    Sounds good, but it bears almost no resemblance to the facts.  You seem
    to have swallowed this nonesense without question.

    In fact there are thousands of successful telepathy style experiments.
    Most were done with just ordinary folk as subjects.  The basic critical
    response has been to insist on "special" requirements, not generally
    required of scientific experiments.  When these requirements have been
    met, the response has boiled down to that an inability to find any flaw
    in the experiments does not mean that none exists, so it can be assumed
    that there is a flaw.

    Even with professional psychics many have never been shown to be
    fraudulent, though in some cases it has been shown how they perhaps
    could have produced the their effects fruadulently (which is, of
    course, very far from the same thing).  I do not feel, because of the
    motivation and possibility of developed skills for fraud, that
    professional psychics provide very good evidence for psi phenomenon --
    but that is a very far cry from them all having been proven to be
    fraudulent.

    It boils down to that you made a strong statement of fact about
    something you apparently knew virtually nothing about.  You did not
    qualify this with any indication that this was how you understood
    things to be, or what you believed to be true.  You stated it as the
    unquestioned truth.  This is not the behavior of a skeptic.

    Of course, you can prove me wrong.  For example, provide a detailed
    critique of Chuck Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments -- anyone with even
    the most passing familiarity with work in the last couple of decades is
    familiar with this.

				Topher

Note 1544.9                  
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Everyone who has ever taught me has always been prepared to show me
>    evidence of the truth of their statements. 
    
     No one has agreed to teach you.
    
PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    I find it interesting that when confronted with a requirement to either
>    prove or be disbelieved, those who claim a "gift" but do not possess it,
>    always manage to find a way to avoid having to prove it. People who
>    truly believe they have a gift will stand any inspection, and in the
>    past, a few frauds have been exposed.
    
    People who truly believe they have a gift would spend their entire lives
    answering challenges (like gun fighters in the old west) ... there are
    more people on the planet today than have ever died...and there is
    always some one new who disbelieves... who wants proof... who wants
    to put their own criteria upon what you choose to show them.  Why waste
    one's life and talent on disbelievers?  What does this accomplish?  
    What good comes of it?
    
>    I have a very open mind, and all I await is for someone to prove to me
>    that they can really do these things.
    
    No offense but while you sit upon your throne waiting for someone to
    "prove to you that they can really do these things".. there are those
    who are more interested in being out there actually doing these things.
    My Grandmother would have said that you have an attitude problem....
    I (of course) would never make such a judgemental statement. 
        
>    Why then, are Jamie and I considered odd because we refuse, for
>    example, to believe someone's claim that they have the ability to
>    influence world events, or that they can select unknown individuals the
>    other side of the world, and force them to abandon all training,
>    discipline etc., and do something they really shouldn't (in the context
>    of their jobs) be doing? Why? I personally, think that it perfectly
>    normal attitude to take, and that blind acceptance is something that
>    even small children have to "learn".
 
    You're not considered odd... not by me anyway... just arrogant... no
    offense intended.   
   
    Mary

RE:   <<< Note 1544.18 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

    
�    What good comes of it?
    
    Conversion.
    
    I would be 100% fully-committed and a true-believer. That's what good
    would come of it. My very participation in this conference shows I have
    a reasonably open attitude to it. I've stated that I'm prepared to be
    proved wrong, and when I am, I'll fall in with the flow. 100%
    
    Laurie.

    Then go to CHRISTIAN.NOTES .... no one is looking for converts here.

    ...or to coin a phrase... "many are called, but few are chosen"

    re: Mary, Topher and Debbie
    
          First off, there has been more activity in here lately
    *because* of Jamie and Laurie and perhaps a few others...even
    Debbie and a few other mostly-read-onlies have come out to say
    something.  So, in some ways, this is "good."  Sometimes our
    realities challenge us so that we can overcome the obstacles
    we put there.  Sometimes we get a bit stubborn and demand bigger
    obstacles.  Hence, we get compliance. ;-)  Personally, I dislike
    "having to argue" (though clearly I do and no one forces me to.)
    So, on some other level, I *must* like arguing.  But arguing
    for me sometimes "wakes me up."  It forces me to take a stand
    that perhaps I was reluctant to take before.  It forces me to
    hold a solid and complete thought--with energy!  So, in *my*
    case, "arguing" can provide a benefit (albeit with more risk
    than without argument.)  All this proves the difference or
    distinction between getting what you say you want and getting
    what you *really* want (conscious versus sub-conscious desire.)
        I agree with your notes, Topher and Mary.  It can be well
    documented that the person who seeks "proof" with this amount
    of determination: 1. can never be satisfied---will always find
    an excuse or reason why the proof was inadequate.
    2.  holds a cross-armed arrogant, better than position of negative
    ego---"I am superior, I don't need to find proof, I need to have
    proof shown to me, instead.  Your way is inferior because it isn't
    my way."  3. holds on to a dying past rather than a hopeful future
    and wants reassurance in that past, though its results are predictable
    (logical) and finite.  4.  has a fear of the unknown and would rather
    show anger than that fear.
         Just a guess, but it's my opinion at the moment.
    
    Frederick
    

Re .17

Yep, Jamie sure does sound dogmatic.  On the other hand, Mary and Fred sound 
ridiculously outrageous in their bizarre claims.  In fact, I would say it was
fairly obvious they get a charge out of making outrageous statements, just as it
is fairly obvious that Jamie gets a charge out of retorting to them. 

Me, I get my kicks watching the repartee.

Re .18

No offense intended?  Why, of course not!  It's totally clear that absolutely 
nothing in all the 46 lines of your note was intended to offend.  Oh, yes,
abundantly clear.  No one would ever dream of it.

Earl Wajenberg

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
    
    I don't know who said it, but it's a very sensible statement.
    
    Now, someone is going to feel the impulse to quibble with "require",
    so I'm going to try and forstall that.  The "require" is used in
    conjunction with "proof", and implies that if you want "proof" as
    one of the results, then it is required that the proof be beyond
    that needed for the merely ordinary.
    
    If one doesn't want to prove something, fine.  One can claim to call
    monsters from the briny deep, or to commune with disembodied
    intelligences on Jupiter.  It happens that there is a fortune of
    enormous worth lying in the mud of the Wash in England, just there
    for the taking.  It is the English crown jewels, lost by King John.
    Now, asserting that they are there is true but valueless; the only
    value is in actually recovering them.  Do you see?  You can claim to
    know where they are, and it may be true, and people may believe you,
    but only the proof will be worth a brass farthing.
    
    "But surely the satisfaction is worth something?" is the reply.
    Sure.  But there are many satisfactions in life, and who can say that
    this one is worth more than that, more (or less) concrete one?
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .23 (Earl-y)
    
         "Bizarre claims" sounds fairly condescending, and clearly
    judgemental to me.  I'll say this, though, "Oyle", I have not made
    any statements in regards to desiring experiments, I make no
    doomsayer predictions, I do not believe in stock-piling for 
    negative futures (no hoarding of ammunition or food, e.g.), I make
    no claims of ufos or aliens or "brethren" of any other kind and
    do not insist on the damnation of anyone.  My "outrageous statements"
    consist of believing that thoughts and feelings and beliefs and
    attitudes are what will determine the reality that we experience.
    If you can't handle this, if this is outrageous and if this is
    a bizarre claim for you, then "tough titty, said the kitty."
    Blow it out your ear!
    
    Frederick
    

    each decides for him or her self the worth of the experience, I
    guess...

    re: .25  (Frederick)
    
    Perhaps Earl regards claims that a discarnate spirit entity
    is channeled through an otherwise ordinary mortal to be
    bizarre.  Perhaps not.  Certainly, Mr. Pursel/Lazaris
    has found this experience to be quite enriching!
    
    Or perhaps the reference to being able, outright, to
    ... Create Reality ... might be considered bizarre by some.
    
    Bizarre may simply be in the eye of the beholder, eh?  But
    don't let it get you down.  You can label any or all of
    my own beliefs `bizarre' and I promise not to change shapes
    on you!
    
    Joel
    
    

    Re .15 

    > Everyone who has ever taught me has always been prepared to show me
    > evidence of the truth of their statements.

    >Yes, when you were ready to learn.

    I am always ready to learn. However I find that in this conference many
    are prepared to let me know of the wondrous things that they can do
    but none are prepared to show me evidence of their claims. Thus how can
    I learn?

    >Perhaps a competent teacher in this field is no more able to teach us
    >this material than a high school science teacher could teach a
    >four-year-old about the gravitational constant. They could produce
    >evidence until the cows come home, but until the student has the
    >prerequisite background, not much learning can occur.

    My, my, aren't we arrogant. Am I really expected to believe that I am
    so stupid that I cannot understand? Or, like the emperor's suit of
    clothes, can it only be seen by the intelligent while the stupid think
    that he is naked?

    Re .17

    >You spend all too much time making dogmatic, unsupported statements and
    >attacking the people who disagree with you -- throwing around phrases
    >like "gullible" and questioning peoples motives.  

    When it comes to making unsupported statements and being dogmatic I
    cannot even hold a candle to some of those who currently oppose me.
    Those who unquestioningly believe anything that they are told are by
    definition gullible. And several people have questioned my motives, am
    I not allowed to do the same?

    >This is not the behavior of an open minded skeptic but of a crusader
    >valiantly fighting for Truth, Justice and the Scientific Way.

    How very true. However I cannot ever remember claiming to be a
    crusader.

    If what you say about telepathy is true I am surprised that any
    telephone company in the world is still in business.

    Re. .18 
    
    >No one has agreed to teach you.
    
    Several have tried to convince me, none were prepared to offer evidence
    of their claims.

    >People who truly believe they have a gift would spend their entire lives
    >answering challenges (like gun fighters in the old west) ... there are

    Oh come on Mary. In this day and age, with all the methods of recording
    and checking? Once a claim of something was proved there would be no
    need for it to be done again and again. Your statement is a pure cop
    out and nothing else.

    Jamie.

> I am always ready to learn.
> Am I really expected to believe that I am
> so stupid that I cannot understand?

Not stupid, just uneducated. And yes, I do expect you to try to believe
it. Wouldn't it be arrogant of us to believe that we are capable of
understanding absolutely anything without appropriate background
information? We would readily admit that we aren't prepared to follow a
graduate-level course in physics without the proper background. So why
do we assume that the field of mysticism is different?

Jamie, you misunderstood only one thing which I've said: you thought
that *I* was claiming to be "ready to learn" these things, while you're
not. Wrong. I'm no more ready to learn, no more prepared, no more
educated in the background material (and certainly not in the major
concepts). There is only one difference: I've come to understand that
there are prerequisites to understanding mystical concepts (and that
there *are* mystical concepts to be understood), just as there are in
*every* other field of learning. I know you don't accept this. I
didn't. And I know that this makes me condescending. Being
condescending is not something I can turn on or off at will, and I
apologize for this character flaw. I hope you'll forgive me, but I more
hope you'll try to see that mysticism really is like physics in this
way, and that we can't just expect to be taught or shown anything just
because we feel like it.

    re: .19
    
    Laurie, I can't speak for everyone here, but I suspect that many would
    agree.  I don't participate in order to prove anything to anyone.  I
    participate to exchange information and ideas.
    
    Mary

    re: .29, Mike,
    
>... there are prerequisites ...
    
    In Cognitive Psych, there is a concept called 'spiral learning,'
    that translates pretty much to this : Certain types of subjects
    in particular can only be learned by passing through a series
    of stages.  Your mind needs to digest the previous information
    and incorporate it into your current conceptual model before you
    can proceed to learn new material based on the previous.  With rare
    exceptions, there are very few shortcuts to learning this type of subject.
    
    I think we could extend that concept to just about any field that
    has a strong experiential component, and mysticism definitely
    falls into that category.   If you are trying to evaluate it,
    I think you really have to either admit that you are 'outside' of it and
    judging it explicitly by its observable behavioral results,
    or you have to go through the spiral learning process over time, to
    provide an 'insider's' perspective.   Perhaps it is useful to take
    both approaches ?  They aren't mutually exclusive, except possibly
    at the same time.    
    
    							todd

    Re .29
    
    Then the paranormal must be the only subject that must be studied from
    scratch.

    Despite having no training in medicine I can understand parts of the
    subject. Almost any intelligent person with a long term medical problem
    is usually an expert on it.

    This works in almost any field. Should you wish to learn a part it is
    possible to do so without having all the lead up education that is
    required by an expert. True you will have a lot more trouble learning
    that small piece that an expert would. Also you will never know as much
    as the expert. But it is quite possible to learn part of a subject.

    Why I have even taught medical people how to fix computers without
    bothering to teach them anything about electronics. True the faults
    that they can fix are, for me, simple ones but they can do it.  

    Jamie.

None of the examples you gave involved learning from scratch. You might
have been able to teach a doctor something about computers, but how
well would you have done with the average goatherd from Zimbabwe?

Now I can't verify that this is true, as I've only read it, but the
claim has been made that people in Western cultures have considerably
less basic information in the field of mysticism than people from, say,
the middle east. For most of us, then, we are, indeed, learning
mysticism practically from scratch. Why do you find this so improbable
or unpleasant?

    re: .33, Jamie,  (on learning)
    
    	You have a good point.  It is certainly possible to provide
    	a superficial understanding of many subjects without giving
    	their derivation.  I can certainly teach someone to solve many 
    	simple kinds of differential equations by giving them a table
    	of integrals and some basic instructions on the matter, without
    	forcing them to go through limit theory, etc..  Or teach someone
    	to write a BASIC program, without putting them through a
    	curriculum on abstract structures of computer science or algorithm 
    	development.   
    
    	The other side of the coin is ... what happens when the problem at
    	hand is not in the tables, or can't be done in BASIC. In many kinds
    	of problems, you then need to traverse back through your
    	understanding of the underlying concepts to provide a method of
    	approaching the solution.  You need to find experts or references
    	or derive new equations, and most importantly, you must decide
    	which source to trust if you get conflicting information.
    
    	When you deal with 'paranormal,' either from a scientific
    	perspective, or a personal one, you are in effect dealing with
    	topics that are by their nature either 'not in the tables,'
    	'not doable in BASIC,' etc., or at least that is one of the
    	possible explanations to be investigated.  This is why we *do*
    	need a very thorough background in the subjects before we can
    	hope to offer useful information to others who have 'done their
    	homework,' figuratively and relatively speaking.  
    
    	Also why I don't reply much lately, I haven't had time to do the 
    	homework.  :-)
    
    					kind regards,
    							todd
    
    	

    >Why do you find this so improbable or unpleasant?

    I just find it is a terribly convenient explanation. "Oh it is far too
    complicated for an untrained person to even begin to understand". And
    as I said it seems to be the subject that this applies to.
    
    Jamie.

Frederick,

I'm sorry you're enraged, or outraged, whichever, but surely you must realize
how your claims look from the viewpoint of ordinary everyday concensus
reality.  And, whatever low opinion you may have of that reality, some version 
of it is still where  most noters of the conference start from, even if most
of them don't stay there.  And they don't all depart from it in the same
direction.  So how did you expect to look to a general noting audience? 
I know that many of my own beliefs meet a mixed reception, at best, on the 
net.

Comfort yourself with the reflection that they laughed at Copernicus, Darwin, 
and Einstein.  On the other hand, it might also be wise to caution yourself 
with the reflection that they also laughed at Larry, Moe, and Curly.

Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re.36
    
    Jamie,
    
    Perhaps the missing key is experiential learning, in this case.
    There are so many subjects being discussed here that I'm not sure which
    one to address, however one that has come up is telepathy.
    
    I know telepathy is real because I've had the experience.  However I
    cannot reproduce it at will, at least not yet.  It takes practice, and
    the willingness to explore it.  Like learning to play the violin, it's
    fairly difficult to jump in and play the Brandenberg Concerti the first
    time you pick it up.  However with practice, just about anyone can
    reach that goal.  
    
    There is a big difference between understanding and experiencing.  No
    matter how much I explain to you how to play the violin, you're still
    not going to be a virtuoso the first time you try to play it, no matter
    how well I explain it.  It is a two-way effort.
    
    For those of us in this conference who have had a first-hand experience
    of telepathy though, we have already gone past the need for proof - we
    know that it works and it is already a part of our everyday reality. 
    So looking at us from the outside, I can see you would have a difficult
    time believing that telepathy is real, and asking us to *prove* it to
    you, since you haven't (yet) had the experience.  But unless you are 
    willing to give it an honest try and realize that we aren't exactly
    experts either when it comes to this, I really don't think that there is 
    any way to prove to you conclusively that it is real, especially by 
    those of us who are just starting out and do not have a 100% success 
    rate at this time.
    
    My own personal use of this ability, by the way, is only to seek a
    greater understanding of what the other person is trying to convey. A
    'picture' is worth a thousand words. I don't use it to guess numbers 
    and shapes.
    
    Cindy

>> Why do you find this so improbable or unpleasant?
> I just find it is a terribly convenient explanation.

But it happens to be true. It would be sad if you chose not to try to
accept it just because many people use it as an excuse for failing to
face reality (I happen to agree with you on this point). As Earl said
in another note, many people will say things which are true, but for
the wrong reasons. Don't confuse motivation with fact. If someone who
hopes to defend a fantasy says something which is nevertheless true,
the truth of the statement isn't lessened. Don't let your ability to
evaluate ideas be degraded by your opinion of the author. You've heard
the expression "out of the mouths of babes"?

RE: .28 (Jamie)

>    When it comes to making unsupported statements and being dogmatic I
>    cannot even hold a candle to some of those who currently oppose me.

    That may well be true, Jamie -- but they do not claim to be "skeptics"
    and to eschew such dogmatism.

>    Those who unquestioningly believe anything that they are told are by
>    definition gullible.

    The truth of your statements is not particularly relevant Jamie. Ad
    hominum arguments are the most common form of the classical logical
    (actually material) fallacy called "ignoratio elenchi": arguing to the
    wrong point.  You do not make your case any stronger by arguing about
    the character of those who hold a different view from yours.

    Please re-read note 1.2 (I'm presuming that you *did* read it) on what
    is considered proper content in this notes file.  Pay especial
    attention to the comments on "fighting words".  Even if your comments
    were relevent and legitimate your mode of expressing yourself was not.

>    And several people have questioned my motives, am I not allowed to do
>    the same?

    In a word, no.  You certainly have the right to criticize others for
    doing so, and if you wish, to request moderator arbitration of the
    offending notes.  But tit-for-tat is neither allowed in this file nor
    the behavior of a real skeptic.  Do you really believe that, for
    example, it is "scientific" to attack creationists with invented
    evidence simply because some creationists have done so?

    I don't read every note by any means, but while I have seen some
    questionable statements directed against you, I have noticed none so
    clearly out of line as yours.  And as always in esculating tit-for-tat
    wars, there is the question of "who started it".
    
>    >This is not the behavior of an open minded skeptic but of a crusader
>    >valiantly fighting for Truth, Justice and the Scientific Way.
>
>    How very true. However I cannot ever remember claiming to be a
>    crusader.

    I'm glad you agree that your behavior is inconsistent with the
    open-minded skepticism that you otherwise claim to.  I do not claim
    that you claim to be a crusader, or even that you *are* a crusader,
    but only that your actions are more like those of an Zealot than of
    a skeptic.  (Or was the last word a typo?)

				    Topher

    
    Jamie... how can you learn with that attitude?
    
    It's like saying 'I don't believe that basketball really exists but I
    want you to teach me how to do it.  Nah... you're just a bunch of guys
    dressed in shiny shorts running around pretending to play basketball...
    you're not real basketball players because basketball doesn't exist and
    I know that for a fact because you haven't proven to me that it does...
    you're just pretending to do something that you call basketball but
    that doesn't mean that it exists because I know it doesn't'.
    
    Go away, Jamie... come back when you want to learn how to play.

    Cindy, I once had a neighbour downstairs who was learning to play the
    piano. Alas he was diligent but inept. However he could reproduce more
    or less the same noise at will, I doubt if he would ever give a concert
    hall performance. If you are telepathic have you absolutely no control
    of it? Can you not even produce the slightest effect at will?

    Re .41

    Mary, they would show me the basketball, hoops, court and probably
    demonstrate with a game. They would not come along and say that there
    was no way that I could ever understand basketball and it was
    impossible to show me. On the subject of the paranormal I get no
    explanations, no demonstrations, just a lot of excuses. Why?

    Jamie.

> If you are telepathic have you absolutely no control
> of it? Can you not even produce the slightest effect at will?

It's quite possible that learning to communicate telepathically is like
learning to talk. At first, you become vaguely aware of messages from
others, and possibly of the fact that others seem to be
(telepathically) aware of your state of mind or thoughts. These bits of
awareness and the desire to be able to do it don't mean that you will
be immediately able to with any precision or control. More learning
must take place.

Perhaps Cindy feels something like, say, a one-year-old, who is is
aware of some of the speech of adults, and can occasionally transmit a
simple message, but can't learn to speak with full competency in a day
or week just because he/she would like to.

The "slightest effect at will" which would be necessary to
unambiguously demonstrate telepathic ability to you or me
(non-telepaths) might require considerable competence. And also, it
would require that we be able to recognize the communication when it
arrives. To continue the analogy, while a one-year-old clearly
recognizes voices as communication, a two-month-old probably doesn't.
So the first step is to become aware that someone is trying to talk to you.

    Jamie,  an inept beginner making noise on a piano is easily identified. 
    But how could you determine whether or not "inner mind chatter" was a
    convoluted message being sent to an inept receive telepathically from an 
    inept beginner?  As it happens, I think its possible that at least some of
    my inner mind chatter, not to mention emotions, are actually me picking
    up on others thoughts and feelings. 
    
    Anyway, someone with modest talent at the piano could need a lot of time 
    and practice before they could relay even a simple recognizable tune.  
    And then, that tune might only be recognizable and reproduceable to an 
    audience who was very familiar with it.  
    
    The experiences some of us have had are too specific and too frequent
    to be chalked up to coincidence and, in many cases, the details around
    them preclude ordinary explanations.  But reproducing them is entirely
    another matter.  You can find a piano teacher in the yellow pages.  But
    a "telepathy teacher?"
    
    Also, my experiences have shown that the feelings involved are
    extremely subtle.  I have no doubt that over time, with practice at
    quieting my inner chatter, the feelings will become more obvious.   Its
    like with riding...I've been riding horses since I was 11 years old.  I
    started studying dressage at 16.  At 21 I really couldn't identify
    which foot my horse was placing on the ground at any given time.  It
    has taken *years* for me to become sufficiently sensitive to be able to
    do so.  I don't believe it was lack of talent -- I've had 2
    international coaches tell me that I had international potential.  Its
    just takes a lot of practice to both fine-tune the appropriate senses
    and tune-out the noise.
    
    Mary

    Re: .42
    
    >...On the subject of the paranormal I get no
    >    explanations, no demonstrations, just a lot of excuses
    
    Uh, Jamie, have you seen/read any of my descriptions of experiences in
    any of the other topics.  In particular, the instance where I knew a
    roommates mood after I awoke from a full night's sleep?
    
    What about this description fails to adequately demonstrate empathy? 
    Or do you believe (and have refrained from stating) that I have either
    deluded myself into false memories (unlikely in this case, because I
    have a witness, a companion with whom I discussed the perception prior
    to getting out of bed and seeing my roommate), or I am blatently lying?
    
    Beth

	Frederick channelling his higher self ...
	
.25>     If you can't handle this, if this is outrageous and if this is
.25>     a bizarre claim for you, then "tough titty, said the kitty."
.25>     Blow it out your ear!

	
	:-)   Cute, Fred. Cute!   :-)

    re: .46 (Jay-mal)
    
         ...sort of like saying "put a sock in it (or put a sock on it,
    whichever seems more appropriate.)"   ;-0
    
    re: .43 (Mike) and .44 (Mary)  [I think, Jay made me forget!  ;-)  ]
    
         Yes, precisely.  We are all of us well versed in "consensus"
    (as Earl astutely pointed out yesterday.)  We've grown up with
    the "baggage" of science and religion.  Our beliefs are very
    well ingrained and entrenched.  We've had lots and lots of practice
    at "consensus."  But what we haven't had is practice at the other
    things...the things we've only had clues about, the things some 
    people hint at, the things that MENTAL and EMOTIONAL, diligent
    WORK have indicated may exist...simply because we see the short-comings
    and limitations of consensus, if for no other reason.
         I agree.  The first step is to recognize the problem.  The
    next step is to practice, practice, practice until the problem is
    academic...and soon, the changes will be apparent (I've seen those
    words somewhere before?!  ;-)  )
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .28 (Jamie)

>    If what you say about telepathy is true I am surprised that any
>    telephone company in the world is still in business.

    Lets see, by this same clear reasoning we can conclude that the US
    space program is a sham.  After all, if they really did send a probe to
    the outer planets then it would be surprising if there wasn't a Jupiter
    Hilton with regular service by the commercial airlines.

    From the standpoint of a communications engineer the communications
    channel evidenced by the parapsychology experiments is (at least as
    used by those experiments) of quite variable bandwidth, with a high
    mean noise rate and a low mean signal rate.  Furthermore, the most
    reliable communication is demonstrated (again under experimental
    conditions) when the "receiver" gets immediate feedback as to success
    or failure as supplied, necessarily, by a conventional communication
    channel.  Furthermore, the quality of the channel deteriorates with
    use -- particularly repetitious use, i.e., the subjects get tired and
    performance falls off.  None of these are characteristics which make
    the channel particularly useful as a replacement for conventional long
    distance communications channels.

    As a matter of interest, however, Bell Labs has given low-level support
    to some successful parapsychology experiments.  These were, however,
    very much research and not directed specifically at developing a
    telepathic telephone.

    Come on, Jamie.  You made claims which I found, with my familiarity
    with the literature in question, quite outrageous.  It is quite out of
    line even with statements of leading critics of parapsychology like Ray
    Hyman (chair for the CSICOP subcommittee on parapsychology).  I asked
    you to support your statements and you ducked the issue.  I even
    suggested a way for you to give some support;  to wit, by supplying, a
    critique, (presumably proving fraud to be in line with your statements)
    of one of the most widely discussed and analyzed series of experiments
    in parapsychology.  I even gave you a hint by saying a little something
    about them in another note.  Or suggest another way to back up your
    claim -- as long as it provides a reasonable amount of logically valid
    support for your claims I'll "accept" it.

    In what way does your behavior differ from that of those whom you have
    felt have earned by that behavior your public mockery?  Put up, shut up
    or admit to having been mistaken.

				    Topher

Well I guess I should be grateful, Topher, for helping to keep things
logical, but don't you think maybe Jamie's had enough scolding to last
him a while?

And just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I hope that some of the folks
who've been the targets of Jamie's criticism will *not* take this as an
indication that Topher (or anyone else) is specifically defending
*your* position. I saw at least one instance of Topher's criticism of
Jamie followed immediately by a reply which might as well have read
"nyah nyah, I told you so, mommy hit you, ha ha". Go see if you can
find one which matches this description.

    Re .45

    Beth. You have not given a demonstration. You have given accounts of
    your version of what happened. 

    Topher, there seems to be a lot of claims made for telepathy yet little
    or no progress. People have claimed to be telepathic for a long time but
    it never seems to some to anything. I would rather have expected that
    if there was any truth in it the military, industry and the government
    would have been falling over themselves to use it.

    Jamie.

    re: <<< Note 1544.50 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "I despise the use of TLAs!" >>>

	Jamie,

        The fact that we have so far been unable to understand or control
        telepathy is not an indication that it doesn't exist.

	It could be that future generations regard it in much the same way
	as we do the telephone and radio.

	Delia

>	Jamie,

>        The fact that we have so far been unable to understand or control
>        telepathy is not an indication that it doesn't exist.
    
    My inner feeling is that the "powers that be" are conservative (and
    probably need to be) to go ahead and embrace theories which are still 
    unclear. As pointed out, the "noise" tends to mask real effects.
    
    I believe it takes courage to throw away existing rule-books and set in
    place new sets of rules which may not always be based upon logic as we
    normally use it. 
    
    Falling back on the old, well tried and tested set of rules is safe but
    we may miss opportunities...something like a "one-trick-pony". The pony
    gets to be really good at his "one trick" but may be rather limited,
    don't you think?
    
    I believe the reason many of us are in the conference because an "inner
    sense" tells us there is more to "everything" than meets the familiar
    senses... sometimes we are overcome by skeptism but yet, we keep one
    eye on the horizon :-) 
    
    -Brian

Re .52: Good point. For example, it may eventually become clear that
the experimental requirement to eliminate subjective effects, by
requiring that phenomena be externally confirmable, precludes the
possibility of testing certain hypotheses.

In one reply, I had said that if Jamie were to receive a telepathic
communication in a manner which was unambiguous to him, it might
constitute a perfectly rigorous scientific experiment (but only for
him). Topher then correctly pointed out that this experimental setup
doesn't eliminate the possibility of subjective effects, and so can't
be considered rigorous.

Consider the matter of pain. It's not easy to measure it "from the
outside". In an anthology (whose name I don't remember) by Daniel C.
Dennett ("Mindstorms", maybe?), he discusses pain and anaesthesia. It
seems that modern anaesthesia involves the use of both analgesics
(morphine-like compounds which block pain), and muscle relaxers (curare
derivatives which causes a form of paralysis). In a typical operation,
the anaesthesiologist will administer both. The first is for patient
comfort (obvious!), the second to control the muscle responses which
could make the operation difficult or impossible.

Now the anaesthesiologist can measure muscle activity fairly
accurately, but can only get indirect indications of the level of pain
experienced by the patient. It turns out (if you know any
anaesthesiologists who will discuss it) that in many operations, the
amount of analgesic may be insufficient (they generally have to try to
keep all dosages at a minimum), and the patient may experience
excrutiating pain, totally unknown to the surgeon, since muscle
activity (and other autonomic functions) is suppressed.

This was learned early on in the use of anaesthesia in operations, when
patients complained afterward of having been fully aware and in
incredible pain. At first, nobody believed them, but then some brave
doctor agreed to undergo the experience himself. He indeed reported the
horrifying experience!

So now, to handle this situation, the anaesthesiologist also
administers a compound which effectively erases the memory of the
operation (causes amnesia). So in a typical operation, the patient may
at times be awake and in pain, unable to indicate this in any way, but
will remember none of it later (it is hoped).

Now, I ask you, since there is no way to measure this pain objectively,
are we to discount its existence? Why did they refuse to believe the
patients, but believed the doctor? No, there are some phenomena which
we won't be able to test by today's requirements for rigor in
experiments. This does not mean that the phenomena don't exist, only
that our scientific method doesn't have a reasonable way to test for them.

Telepathy is probably one of these. The very attempt to impose
experimental rigor may create conditions under which the phenomenon
won't occur. Example: you couldn't expect to observe water freezing by
conducting your experiments at noon in the Sahara. Why should we assume
that mystical phenomena would be reproducible under unsuitable
conditions? Given that telepathy is essentially a mental phenomenon,
why shouldn't the attitudes and intentions of the experimenters affect
the outcome of the experiment. It would be like trying to measure the
effects of dim red light on bacteria, but conducting your experiments
outdoors at high noon. Until we begin to understand what constitutes a
suitable environment for observing mystical phenomena, and adjust our
experimental approach to account for these factors, we're not going to
make much progress.

    
    re .53
    
    exactly
    
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Mary, they would show me the basketball, hoops, court and probably
>    demonstrate with a game. They would not come along and say that there
>    was no way that I could ever understand basketball and it was
>    impossible to show me. On the subject of the paranormal I get no
>    explanations, no demonstrations, just a lot of excuses. Why?

    Jamie... you have to recognize it when you see it and you don't.  You
    want it to be something else.... Hollywood special effects or
    something.  Do you tell Michael Jordan that he 
    can't shoot unless he shoots at 3 in the afternoon, wearing the color
    red, from the left side on a northeast direction?  No!  You let him do
    his thing and you accept it for what it is.
    
    You don't understand because you don't want to understand, and you don't
    see because you don't want to see.  I used to spend a lot of time with
    demonstrations and explanations ... all to no avail... there is always
    someone else who comes along making demands that they are not entitled
    to make... 
    
    Your attitude suggests that we owe you something... as far as I can
    tell, Jamie... we don't.  Therefore we are not making excuses.  You
    don't pay us, you're not our boss or our parent or spouse... we are 
    not obligated to perform for you, ... therefore excuses are not 
    required.

    >Your attitude suggests that we owe you something... as far as I can
    >tell, Jamie... we don't.  Therefore we are not making excuses.  You
    >don't pay us, you're not our boss or our parent or spouse... we are 
    >not obligated to perform for you, ... therefore excuses are not 
    >required.

    Your attitude suggests wriggling out of a commitment rather than a
    rational statement.

    Jamie.

Both may be correct. But we're still not getting anywhere.

RE: .50

    And of course you just *know* that there has been little or no
    progress.  In fact there has been a great deal of progress in
    understanding the set of experimental anomalies called "telepathy".
    It is, however, an intrinsically difficult phenomenon -- whatever it
    "is" -- to study (think about what telepathy, if real, does to concepts
    such as "blind" conditions, randomization, and "closed experimental
    systems), to which is added immense social, psychological and political
    problems.  Serious work has been done only by a handful of trained
    researchers with extremely limited resources.  There is thus a great
    deal of work to be done.  Or do you hold that nothing exists until it
    is completely understood and well enough controlled to support
    practical application?

    Do you really believe that the military, industry and government
    consist of perfectly rational people who examine objectively all
    available information and then persue courses of action best designed
    for the long-term good of all?

    I have made quite narrow claims for telepathy (I don't know where you
    get that "a lot of claims").  I have claimed that experiments of a
    particular type, labeled telepathy experiments, show a long term,
    reliable, robust, effect which does not seem to be explainable in
    conventional terms.  I have also claimed that the effect demonstrated
    in those experiments, at least in the circumstances of those
    experiments, is weak and otherwise unsuitable for practical
    application.  If you had asked I would have said that there have been
    attempts at application of this and related phenomena by the military,
    industry and the government, and that those attempts were completely as
    one would predict on the basis of the experimental evidence -- of zero
    to marginal use.

    In any case, all this is beside the point.  Whether or not there has
    been "progress" or whether or not my "claims" imply immediate practical
    application, has no bearing at all on the outright and utter falsehood
    of *your* claims -- that a few people had done well in telepathy tests
    but that all of them had been proven to be frauds.

    Instead of attempting to argue why the evidence cannot exist -- like
    a medieval scholastic refusing to look through Galileo's telescope --
    why don't you go and look at the collected evidence for yourself?

				    Topher

    
    Jamie,
    
    Mike Glantz answered quite well the question you posed to me. 
    
    Telepathy, like developing other abilities, takes practice.  I may
    reach a level someday where I'm able to reproduce it at will such that
    I will be successful at *proving* it to you.  But I'm not interested in
    proving anything...I'm more interested in using this ability to
    communicate more effectively.  Quite literally I was VAXmailing with
    someone in another country one night, and language was presenting
    difficulty in the communication - I didn't 'get' it.  So we both
    decided to try a 'telepathic' connection, and an image came into my
    mind.  Then it was clear.  I described the image via VAXmail to the
    other person, and it was correct.   Not exactly scientific, but it
    worked, and has worked on countless other occasions as well.
    
    Cindy

Note 1544.55                 
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Your attitude suggests wriggling out of a commitment rather than a
>    rational statement.

    I haven't made any "commitment", Jamie.... 
    
    and as far as I know, there is no law requiring that all of my
    statements be "rational".

    I used to try to help people by warning them of coming events... then
    they blamed me when the events happened.  So I examined my
    participation in the event to see if there was any truth in what they
    said... and I found that indeed I *could* change something that I saw
    coming if I didn't like it.  Now, I've had people that I've known a
    long time, remind me of a prediction I made that happened and suggest
    that I am responsible for it's happening.  
    
    No one wants to hear bad news... and if it happens, they look for
    someone to blame.  There isn't much motivation for a psi in our modern
    world.  The same people who demand proof will be the first to throw 
    stones and cry 'witch' when they get it.

    MARY,
    
    Did you ever warn people about good events?  What was their reaction to
    that?
    
    ~ginny

    People don't need to be "warned" about good events.  People don't have
    to take steps to protect themselves from good events.
    
    
    And yes, I've told people about good events and nothing happens... they
    smile and forget about it and when it happens, they say 'oh yea... what
    a coincidence'.

    Well Mary I thought that you said you would demonstrate your powers to
    us. That is what is called a commitment.

    Topher, governments, the military and industry have quite open minds
    about using anything that will give them an advantage over others.
    Should telepathy be as advanced as you say, then I am surprised that
    they are not interested, despite your dogmatic stance on this point.

    Jamie.

    No... that is not a committment, Jamie... that is an example of what
    an incredible fool I am.... not news to you, I am sure.

RE: .63 (Jamie)

    Let's see if I have this straight, Jamie.

    For almost two decades I have been making a detailed examination of a
    body of scientific evidence.  I have read the original papers, spoken
    to the researchers, visited their labs, dug through the archives,
    checked the statistics, written letters and papers, done detailed
    analyses of the data, read the critics comments, spoken to them,
    conducted minor experiments, been consulted in my areas of expertise,
    etc., etc.

    On the basis of that intimate knowledge of the subject I have made a
    statement -- that the experimental body consists of quite a bit more
    than a few exceptional individuals who have done well for a time until
    proven to be fraudulent.  In fact, that there is a substantial body
    of research for which no even vaguely adequate explanation in
    conventional terms has been offered.

    You, on the other hand, though you have no first hand knowledge of the
    subject just *KNOW* that the evidence does not exist.  It is
    unnecessary for you to actually inform yourself about the subject since
    you just *KNOW* that the evidence can't be different from what you
    *KNOW* the Truth to be.

    And I'm the one being dogmatic?

    Governments, the military and industry have quite open minds about
    anything useful which does not challenge their strong preconceptions.
    You see, those institutions are made up of people, and they therefore
    share the limitations of those people.  Of course not everyone in those
    institutions have those particular preconceptions so strongly imbedded,
    but for them to get anywhere against "the tide" of religious and
    philosophical prejudice they must be able to show unmistakable,
    *immediate* usefulness.  Some have tried -- as I said there have been
    such projects in the military (mostly intelligence, actually),
    governmental, and industrial sectors.  And as I also said, many of
    those projects have been technically successful, and a few have shown
    marginal utility.  But as I have also-also said, as would be expected
    from the scientific results so far, none have had such overwhelming
    utility as to overcome the social resistance -- I suspect that those
    insiders who pushed the projects in the first place, even the
    successful ones, have mostly been labeled as "nuts" and found that they
    are no longer getting promoted -- an object lesson to others who would
    follow suit.  You see, people just *KNOW* that any sucessful experiment
    must be due to fraud or incompetance on the part of the experimenter,
    even if they cannot find any other evidence for it.  Success is
    evidence enough.

					Topher

	What about predicting a 'bad' event about to happen to a famous
	person or two. Then we would be able to check the TV news and 
	be amazed !!

		p1

    re: .65, (Topher)
    
>    For almost two decades I have been making a detailed examination of a
>    body of scientific evidence.  I have read the original papers, spoken
>    to the researchers, visited their labs, dug through the archives,
>    checked the statistics, written letters and papers, done detailed
>    analyses of the data, read the critics comments, spoken to them,
>    conducted minor experiments, been consulted in my areas of expertise,
>    etc., etc.
    
    Might it be appropriate at this point to refer to specific published data
    or post results of your experiments that lead to your conclusions,
    so that others can follow your reasoning in more detail ?
    
    							todd

Note 1544.66                 
VULCAN::SMITHP1 
    
>	What about predicting a 'bad' event about to happen to a famous
>	person or two. Then we would be able to check the TV news and 
>	be amazed !!

        Then what?
    
        How many "bad" events have to happen to how many people before
        you consider yourself to be amazed?
    
        Is amazing you worth the bad karma incurred by bad events happening
        to other people?
    
        How "bad" do the events have to get in order to properly amuse you?
    
        See where this stuff can lead?   I need a rest.  See y'all later
        maybe.
    
    Mary

>        See where this stuff can lead?   I need a rest.  See y'all later
>        maybe.
    
    Isn't that what the Master Therion said on his death bed, just before the
    infamous 'I am perplexed'  ?
    					;-)
    							todd

Re .67 ,(Todd):

    >Might it be appropriate at this point to refer to specific published data
    >or post results of your experiments that lead to your conclusions,
    >so that others can follow your reasoning in more detail ?

Probably would.  However, if you've got some 20 years of stuff under your belt,
which "specific published data" would you select?  Unless you unload the whole
trip, the critic might accuse you of selecting the most favorable stuff
you could find, to "cook" the results.

Not an easy task.

Re .68 (Mary):

        >Is amazing you worth the bad karma incurred by bad events happening
        >to other people?

Umm ... are you suggesting that one of your predictions would be a self-
fulfilling prophecy?  Sounmds like a whole new wrinkle to the prediction game.
["I wouldn't hurt you for a minute, but I'm about to squeeze one off and you're
in my line of fire."]

Re .69 (Todd):

    >Isn't that what the Master Therion said on his death bed, just before the
    >infamous 'I am perplexed'  ?

Master Therion was almost as much of a bundle of laughs as Frater Perdurabo.
;-D

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .67 (todd)

>    Might it be appropriate at this point to refer to specific published data
>    or post results of your experiments that lead to your conclusions,
>    so that others can follow your reasoning in more detail ?

    I have already -- admittedly a while ago.  See note 31 and its replies.
    There has been a lot of good recent work, but the most unquestionably
    important of that has been a number of "meta-analyses" of various
    bodies of parapsychological research.  Meta-analysis is the relatively
    young (as a systematic, distinct field) branch of statistics concerned
    with systematic, more-or-less objective, staatistical analysis of a
    whole body of evidence and determining what the overall conclusion of
    the data is.

    A recent book is "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science" by Richard
    Broughton.  It is published by one of the major publishers.  It
    attempts to lay out the scientific evidence for an educated but not
    expert audience.  I have not read the book and so cannot yet personally
    recommend it, but:

	1) I've skimmed it and liked what I saw.

        2) Heard a number of favorable reviews, both personal and
        "official" (e.g., Publisher's Weekly -- which means that there is a
        reasonable chance that your local library already has it or can be
        talked into getting it fairly easily).  I've yet to hear a negative
        review.

	3) I've known Richard for a long time, and consider him good,
	sensible, articulate and technically very familiar with the
	material.

	4) I have read the chapter where he discusses the meta-analyses
	(entitled "Summing it Up") and *can* recommend that chapter without
	reservation.

    In other words, I come as close as I can to recommending a book I have
    not actually read.

					Topher

    re: (Todd)
    
    Let me refer you to the recently published book _Parapsychology:
    The Controversial Science_ by parapsychologist Richard Broughton,
    Ph.D.  I am going to "review" this book here in the near future,
    so you will get a flavor of what this book is about.  To do
    a proper review, though, it occurred to me last night that I
    am going to have to re-read it with a view towards making
    a review.  A pleasant task.  The re-read, that is.
    
    For the nonce, let me say that Topher might agree this book
    contains, among other information, an excellent presentation,
    from the point of view of a parapsychologist, of the most
    significant results uncovered by parapsychological research,
    both in the field and in the lab.
    
    Topher and I certainly disagree in many areas involving
    paranormal phenomena (as you know) but I must say I support
    his basic position as outlined in his recent notes here.
    Criticism of parapsychological research, (which criticism
    by the way is part of the parapsychologist's job) without
    having viewed the evidence, is the sort of skepticism from
    which I wish to dissassociate myself.  
    
    And, yes, Todd, I realize you aren't guilty of this particular
    sin.  Your sins are hopefully more fun and more
    interesting!   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    Er, notes collision here.  Topher was entering .71 while I
    was entering .72.  I swear - there was no collusion!  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    It's a possibility, Steve.

    I think the analogy I will enter below is in keeping with the topic of
    this note, while perhaps explaining why it is so difficult to convince
    the sceptics that our views are not necessarily invalid, just
    different.
    
    
    Imagine a world were no one can see; the sense of sight does not exist,
    and so the impact on vocabulary and science is nil.  The concept of
    color does not exist, nor of light.  Now, for some reason, a few, very,
    very few, can see.  They grow up and it takes them a while to realize
    that no one else around them "see" - they have assumed that all can do
    things as they do.  Any differences in personal development might be 
    small enough to ignore (everybody can find the same thing, the sighted
    person might be perceived as slow, or quick, to learn some things, but
    not significantly so).  As the sighted gets older, he learns that he IS
    using something none of the others have.  He tries to explain it to
    them - but since the concept doesn't exist, he is branded as different.
    
    Eventually, two people who can see happen across one another, and start
    discussing their ability.  They describe it by different terms, since
    the language doesn't have any means whatsoever to mean what they know.
    
    Should the unsighted scientific study this phenomenon, they could
    measure differences in sighted versus non-sighted, but the data doesn't
    necessarily prove that sight exists.  Should a sighted scientist
    experiment to prove the existence of sight, he would be branded a fraud
    if he claimed success because he already claims he can see.  Until a
    tool could be found to induce sight in the blind, and over time, they
    are taught the consistancy of what they see, then perhaps they would
    believe.  Most likely, the majority who never experience sight would
    still claim "fraud, disillusionment, insanity".
    
    
    Replace sight with psychic ability, and you have the same situation. 
    We can measure that a difference exists, but that doesn't prove (or
    disprove) the ability.
    
    And, IMHO, psionics and such CAN be experienced by all, if only they
    "open their eyes".  But opening the eyes requires a leap of faith that
    psionics is real.  Even the smallest grain of doubt keeps the eyes
    closed.  Or, if you have experienced a psychic event, the grain of
    doubt tells you you imagined it, and so again, the sceptic cannot be
    convinced.  So, until the sceptic experiences psi, he will be a
    sceptic, but he won't experience it as long as he is a sceptic.  He
    will never be able to open his eyes, because he doesn't believe he has
    eyes to be opened (this may be a subconscious belief, too).
    
    
    
    As for military usefulness:  Even the non-skilled or untalented can
    erect mental barriers to keep someone out of their head (kind of like a
    wall in front of the eyes).  It can be torn down, but that is not an
    easy thing to do, especially when the barrier is rebuilt as quickly as
    it is torn down.  Stalemate.  and the untalented or unskilled may never
    even recognize that they were attacked (because no one has told them,
    nor have they had reason to learn, that a particular sensation means
    you are under assault).
    
    Beth

Re .74 (Mary):

    >It's a possibility, Steve.

Then it's not a prediction; it's a threat. :-)

re .75 (Beth):

    >Imagine a world were no one can see; the sense of sight does not exist,
    >and so the impact on vocabulary and science is nil.  The concept of
    >color does not exist, nor of light.  Now, for some reason, a few, very,
    >very few, can see.  They grow up and it takes them a while to realize
    >that no one else around them "see" - they have assumed that all can do
    >things as they do. ....

I think a better analogy would be fully sighted versus being colorblind.
There is no way that a sighted person in a world of almost totally blind wouldn't
be aware of the differences almost instantly.  Unless the sighted person were
an idiot.  But the differences between being able to see and being able to
see in color wouldn't be at all evident, casually.

    >Should the unsighted scientific study this phenomenon, they could
    >measure differences in sighted versus non-sighted, but the data doesn't
    >necessarily prove that sight exists.  Should a sighted scientist
    >experiment to prove the existence of sight, he would be branded a fraud
    >if he claimed success because he already claims he can see.  Until a
    >tool could be found to induce sight in the blind, and over time, they
    >are taught the consistancy of what they see, then perhaps they would
    >believe.  Most likely, the majority who never experience sight would
    >still claim "fraud, disillusionment, insanity".
 
Here I can't agree.  Currently, there's not a human who can see gamma radiation,
who can hear 45 KHz sounds, or who can feel magnetic flux.  We don't induce the
senses in the scientists to measure, manipulate, or exploit these things; we
develop detectors (instruments) that can do so for us.

The point is that light phenomena can be replicated; for psi, it's more diffi-
cult.  

    >And, IMHO, psionics and such CAN be experienced by all, if only they
    >"open their eyes".  But opening the eyes requires a leap of faith that
    >psionics is real.  Even the smallest grain of doubt keeps the eyes
    >closed. ....

Well, a couple of caveats:  I still think "psionics" should refer to that stuff
involving "eloptic radiation" and the like; "psi" should be quite adequate to
describe the organically based paranormal phenomena in place.  Also, for the
record, I have belief in the existence of psi phenomena (and other paranormal
stuff); however ---

The "leap of faith" argument is a "no lose" situation for any arguer; if "it" 
(whatever "it" happens to be, whether it's psi or healing) doesn't happen, then
the practitioner just simply doesn't have enough faith.  The alternative, that
"it" might not be real, can be dismissed.

    >As for military usefulness:  Even the non-skilled or untalented can
    >erect mental barriers to keep someone out of their head (kind of like a
    >wall in front of the eyes).  It can be torn down, but that is not an
    >easy thing to do, especially when the barrier is rebuilt as quickly as
    >it is torn down.  Stalemate. ...

And here I must demur.  You _believe_ that the "non-skilled or untalented"
can erect such barriers, but it's difficult to substantiate or refute.  I
suspect that to a trained telepath (and I suspect not everybody can do that,
either), there is no barrier an untrained mind could try to erect that couldn't
be overcome.  Probably through something like radio signal reconstruction from
sidebands, bandpassing, or the like.  If I'm correct, no stalemate.

Also, some psi functions, like clairvoyance, wouldn't require an active mind on
the "observed" side.  It'd be great for spying on, say, missile emplacement
locations.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Steve,
    
    Your analogy is definitly better than mine - existence of a particular
    color versus no color at all.  However, if you had been told about
    infra-red before it could be measured, just as a theory, would the
    consensus population have believed in it?  I doubt it.  The point I was
    trying to make was that without the proper tools to measure, and
    without accepting the possibility of existence, a sceptic couldn't be
    convinced.  We did eventually devise the tools to measure the worlds
    shape properly, but when Columbus sailed the consensus was that he
    would find the edge of the world.  Someone had to experience the
    trip from Europe to America (Columbus AND his crews) to prove the
    accuracy of the belief of a round world.  But I'm sure that there were
    still a few die hards that believed the trip was faked.
    
    
    >Also, for the
    >record, I have belief in the existence of psi phenomena (and other
    >paranormal
    >stuff); however ---
    
    Well, that's one I'm still not really totally sure on, myself.  There
    seems to be some evidence indicating that all have the potential for psi, 
    but, as some are born tone deaf or color blind, some have no psi,
    perhaps.
    
    >The "leap of faith" argument is a "no lose" situation for any arguer
    
    I realize this, but I have no other explanation for it.  I have seen
    myself held back in ability for just that reason, not enough faith. 
    But, it is a really tough point to prove.  Sometimes the doubt isn't
    just that you don't believe in psi, but that you don't believe you are
    capable of it.  And you may not even be consciously aware of the bit of
    self-doubt that prevents you from succeeding (this sort of relates to
    some of Frederick's[?] replies elsewhere on responsibility).
    
    As for clairvoyance, I can't even begin to figure how that works, but
    personally, I feel it involves some telepathy.  And, before you can
    find the missile silo, you have to have background information, and
    that is the tough stuff to have.  Kind of like trying to make the
    correct decision with insufficient data.
    
    Beth 

    re .62 (Mary)
    
    I've been warned about upcoming good events, in the spirit of "so don't
    blow it."
    
    Haven't you ever predicted something good that couldn't be dismissed as
    coincidence?  Or something bad that can't be blamed on you?  If you
    predicted I'd lose my job and I did, I'd see that as a self-fulfilling
    prophecy.  If you predicted that lightning would strike the tree in
    front of my house and it did, that's not something I would believe that
    you had the power to cause...
    
    re .72 & .73
    
    You guys weren't communicating telpathically, now were you? :-)
    
    ginny

    "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is...
    
    		... a lunatic!"
    
    ... or should that read 'Charlatan' ...
    
    brian

    Re .77
    
    Just to prepare people for the upcoming semi-millenial celebrations of
    Columbus in 1992, Columbus did not prove the world was round.  All the
    educate people in Europe had known that for centuries by 1492. 
    Columbus HOPED to prove you could reach China and India by sailing
    west.  He failed, for reasons that I, personally, am living on.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

  
  Re .80 (Earl)
  
  > Columbus HOPED to prove you could reach China and India by sailing 
  > west.  He failed, for reasons that I, personally, am living on.    
  
  So he was a lousy driver ... :-)
  

    re: .78 (Ginny)
    
    Well, you never know.  But I suspect in such a case I would
    be more the beneficiary than Topher!  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

RE: .79

	Two students were looking in a shop window,
	one turned to the other and said "That's the one I'd get!"
	Then a cyclops stormed over and beat crap out of him.

	:-)

								- JIM CAD*

re: 1544.68 
VERGA::STANLEY 

>        See where this stuff can lead?   I need a rest.  See y'all later
>        maybe.
>    
>    Mary


	"Oh, it's one of those songs that you hear now and then.
	 You don't know just where, and you don't know just when..."

	I guess that's why the notesfile is called DEJA_VU, eh ?

	-Art  ;-}

    re .84
    
    If you felt as terrible as I do right now, you'd need a rest too.

Note 1544.78                 
POCUS::FERGUSON 
    
    
>    Haven't you ever predicted something good that couldn't be dismissed as
>    coincidence?  
    
     Yes... but the natural inclination of people is to chalk it up to
    coincidence..  It's difficult for people to accept things they think
    are impossible, you know? ... and what difference does it make,
    really..
    
    
    >Or something bad that can't be blamed on you?  If you
    >predicted I'd lose my job and I did, I'd see that as a self-fulfilling
    >prophecy.  If you predicted that lightning would strike the tree in
    >front of my house and it did, that's not something I would believe that
    >you had the power to cause...
    
    Well, to be honest with you... I don't know the connection myself... so
    who is to know?  My first inclination when accused of causing something
    was to deny it vehemently... then I thought about it and tried a few
    little experiments and guess what?  I was able to effect the things
    I saw coming.  Now if I was truly able to effect it... and I've proved
    to myself that I am... then I must have been responsible in the first
    place.. or thats how it seems... at least I can't exhonerate myself to
    myself.
    
    So now I'm in a really difficult spot.  I try not to think about anything 
    negative... and don't react unless I 'see' something coming so intently
    that it screams out at me... then I sometimes try to change it .. if it
    seems too horrible to bear that is... It gets confusing... maybe I need
    a panel of advisors. :-) (groan... just kidding... it's the sickness
    talking)

Re : Note 1544.60 by VERGA::STANLEY 
    
	Regarding your statements in note .60, you seem to imply that
	predicting and controlling the future is just part of a busy
	day for you. You seem to talk about it in such a 'matter of
	fact' way, that I thought it would be simplicity itself to
	give the readers of this topic an insight into the possibilities
	available with a little 'mind training' or whatever.

Re : Note 1544.68 by VERGA::STANLEY 

>How many "bad" events have to happen to how many people before
>you consider yourself to be amazed?

	Just one would be fine. A 'bad' event does not necessarily mean
	a life threatening one. Missing a plane, or fluffing a speech
	would be the type of trivia that would get wide news coverage. 
    
>How "bad" do the events have to get in order to properly amuse you?

	I see you have modified 'amaze' to 'amuse'. I would not be
	amused if I could believe that the events you are writing about
	have some foothold in fact. I *AM* amused at your instant rebuff
	and cryptic references to 'bad karma'.
    
>See where this stuff can lead?   I need a rest.  See y'all later
>maybe.

	Is that a yes ?!

		p1

    re: .87 (Pee-one)
    
          I cannot speak for Mary, of course.  I would probably work
    hard to avoid getting into the ego-wrestling match that would 
    follow making predictions, but be that as it may, I would also
    add that at the same time, dreaming in now a far more integral
    part of my life than before.  That is, dreaming is more conscious
    than it was in my past and within it there is more of a "shaping"
    nature.  What I mean is that since I'm doing this activity anyway,
    I might as well make it more of what I want it to be rather than
    whatever decides to come along.  Lucid dreaming, in a sense.
          Making negative predictions has its own set of attributes.
    Among them is the fact that it re-inforces the finality of any
    given event, rather than opening to the possibility of changing
    it.  The negative event can still occur, however it could be 
    relegated to a parallel reality, instead of this one.  Any future
    is mutable, changeable...making a negative prediction focuses on
    the negative...and sets up grief besides.  However, pointing out
    the possibility of a negative future and working feverishly towards
    a positive outcome and therefore focusing and putting energy on
    the positive is probably much more prudent.
         Again, the biggest problem is negative ego.  Negative ego will
    set it up so that somehow or other one will fail.
    
    Frederick
    ("Pee-wheeee!!!)
    

> re: Note 1544.88 by MISERY::WARD_FR "Making life a mystical adventure"

>Making negative predictions has its own set of attributes.
>Among them is the fact that it re-inforces the finality of any
>given event, rather than opening to the possibility of changing
>it.

	Does this mean that by negatively predicting that team A will
	lose a football match, the chances of team B winning are 
	increased ? Or is this only in a parallel reality ? (I don't
	think QPR would be top of division 1 in *ANY* reality !!!)

		p1

    
    Re. -1,
    
->>Among them is the fact that it re-inforces the finality of any
->>given event, rather than opening to the possibility of changing
->>it.
    
->	Does this mean that by negatively predicting that team A will
->	lose a football match, the chances of team B winning are 
->	increased ?
    
    The statement clearly says the 'finality of any given event', not
    the 'probability of any given event'. There's hope yet; QPR might
    still not come out on top of division 1 and shatter your beliefs.
    
    However, the cardinal rule is never to lay a wager based on what
    a metaphysician says. He does not create *your* reality, so you
    can't hope to make money thru him.
    

    re: .89 (Pee-one)
    
         Yes, it will have an impact.  That impact is still determined,
    however, or augmented, by other beliefs and feelings and attitudes.
    You don't always get what you *say* you want, though you will always
    get what you "want."  (Want, in this case, is determined by all
    aspects together, conscious, sub-conscious, un-conscious and 
    super/higher-conscious.)  Which is why scientists, in attempting
    to circumvent this bias, like to use double-blind tests, etc.
    But if the bias exists at all, even to the extent that scientists
    attempt to admit, then it exists no matter how many "blinds" are
    put on.  Each blind, however, may be an influence from somewhere
    else that is allowed in.  Therefore, the result will be "getting 
    what you want" rather than what you say or think you want.
    
    Frederick
    

->Note 1544.89	
->	Does this mean that by negatively predicting that team A will
->	lose a football match, the chances of team B winning are 

	P1, this also depends on whether you are a team A supporter,
	team B supporter, or a team Z supporter.(The team Z supporter
	looks at the A Vs B match in the light of its effects further
	down in the league when the winner plays team Z.)

	When you go about trying to affect the outcome, take into
	consideration the following :-

	Positive Prediction
        -------------------
	1. If you are a team A supporter that predicts that team A will
	   win, then what happens ? That depends on the attributes of a
	   positive prediction.

	2. If you are a team A supporter that predicts that team B will
	   win, then you have really made a negative prediction, although
	   you might say to yourself that you are thinking positively. In
	   such a case, you will reinforce the finality of team B winning,
	   which is a negative event for you in so far as team A loses.

	3. Team Z supporter predicts A will win or B will win. If team Z
	   is stronger than both A and B, then the worst team of A and B
	   wins, so that Z has an easy encounter ahead. If team A is stronger
	   than team Z, then team B loses and vice versa (meaning team B is
           stronger than team A.) If teams A and B are both stronger than
	   team Z, then the best of the two (A and B) wins.

	Negative prediction
        -------------------
	1. Team A supporter predicts that team A will lose - reinforces the 
	   finality of team A losing.
  
	2. Team A supporter predicts that team B will lose - reinforces the
	   finality of team B losing.

	3. Similar to 3 above, by now you are capable of understanding the
	   effects of your negative prediction as a team Z supporter, I guess.

	Non-prediction
        --------------
	If you can't care less about teams A and B and football, most likely
	the best team wins.( Actually even this is not as simple as you think,
	because the company that makes the headache medicine Coadbil loses a 
	customer in you, and therefore eventually the shareholders' dividend is 
	effected, and you have made a negative prediction unconsciously.)


        A minor point : All of the above gets modified if what you think
        -------------   consciously is different from what you say consciously,
	                or if what you think sub-/un-consciously is at variance
	                what you say/think un-/sub-/super-consciously.

	Minor point 2 : In the actual process of creating your reality, or
	-------------   realizing your imagination, details such as listed
	                above are irrelevant. You merely create it. Period.
	
        In any case, you might be hopelessly lost if you can't consciously
    	know what you (want unconsciously), (parentheses used to remove the
    	confusion from reading it the other way), and it affects your
    	reality anyway.
    
    	Have fun, P-1.
    
        Jana

	Well team, looks like all this positive thought wotnot has paid
	off nicely thank you.

	The reason ?

	QPR 5 - Hull 1  in the Rumbelows Cup or somesuch...

	The most amazing result this season, even considering that Hull 
	are probably lingering at the bottom of division 3 at the moment.
	QPR go through to the next round 8-1 on aggregate.

	All these extra +ve emissions from across the sea must be weighting
	in favour of the lads in the blue and white hoops. Lets see if we
	can get	them to the top of the league by next May or whenever.
	
		p1

        Re .93,

->	All these extra +ve emissions from across the sea must be weighting
->	in favour of the lads in the blue and white hoops. 

	Alas, in this you're mistaken. We from the other shore *do not*
	create your reality. (We're pretty busy creating our own, which
	happens to be at a different level from yours, but no more truer
	than yours, to be sure.)

	You've just had a demonstration of your own ability to modify
	your reality in the case of QPR. You're now set to embark on one
	of the most exciting trips that any human can. Its all upto you,
	its all your choice. You're only limited by your imagination.	

	PS: Not to dampen your spirit, but don't try raising QPR to the
	    level of the likes of Juventus immediately. Its a common 
	    mistake with beginners, who get disillusioned quickly when
	    such attempts do not bring in precise results. ( Actually, to
	    tell you a story, there was one Ganesh Vidyarthi who was a
	    staunch follower of Gandhi. When riots brike out between two
	    communities, Ganesh was of the firm opinion that he could
	    by the power of his will and faith in non-violence, disarm the
	    mob. He stood unarmed between the mobs advancing against each other.
	    At the end of the day, Ganesh was in the morgue, because he was
	    not very clear in his head of which reality he was choosing.)

	    Work your way up, with diligence, and sure enough one day you'll
	    be able to accomplish feats like QPR overthrowing Juventus in the
	    European Cup final.
    

	Last Saturday I had a 'reality modification' session in the 
	afternoon. At 3pm exactly, I started concentrating on a small
	blue spot positioned on the ceiling. After 10 minutes my mind
	started to drift away and I found that I had a headache and
	an immense thirst. I decided to call it a day. I was pleasantly
	surprised when - sitting in front of the TV with a glass of
	orange squash - I noticed QPR had beaten Wimbledon 1-0 at Plough
	Lane. Another away win for the Rangers.
	
	Just keeping you all informed. Perhaps some of you would like to
	try this yourselves. The time to synchronise at is 15:00 BST this
	Saturday, 26th October.

		p1	

    
    Sorry, P1,
    
    I'm already otherwise committed to visualizing Liverpool do better than
    they've been doing this season. My husband still hopes they will do
    well this year winning the league, league cup or FA cup, but then he's
    an incorrigible optimist! Myself, I favor the 'Spurs.......
    
    
    Marilyn

  <<< Note 1544.95 by VULCAN::SMITHP1 "is undefined or used out of context" >>>

>	afternoon. At 3pm exactly, I started concentrating on a small
>	blue spot positioned on the ceiling. After 10 minutes my mind

P,

I found this very interesting.  There is a little known cult called the
Cult of the Blue Spot in which members concentrate on a intangible point of
nothingness.  The intensity of concentration causes the delusion that one is
in fact 'seeing' a blue point of infinity, which in turn causes the delusion
that one is altering one's ambient reality.  I've read that members of the
Cult call this phenoma "Dagmarism".  It's strange you came across this
randomly.

Mail me for more info.

W1

    
->	Just keeping you all informed. Perhaps some of you would like to
->	try this yourselves. The time to synchronise at is 15:00 BST this
->	Saturday, 26th October.
    
        Wow ! I'd like to try. How do I get that blue spot on my ceiling?
    	Is it enough if I just imagine the spot ? Also, I'm able to imagine
    	two shades of blue - Turquoise blue and Sky blue. Which do you
    	think will help more ?
    	
        Jana
    
        Ps : what is 15:00 BST ? I know that the Brits don't follow the
             rest of the world, so do they follow some metric system, say
    	     10 hours to a day, and 10 hours to a night or something ?
    
    

                      <<< Note 1544.98 by DEVIL1::JANA >>>

    
>        Ps : what is 15:00 BST ? I know that the Brits don't follow the
>             rest of the world, so do they follow some metric system, say
>    	     10 hours to a day, and 10 hours to a night or something ?

aaarrrhhhh .. the very suggestion !!!!!

We Brits follow a well established and proven *imperial* system.



"Metric" ??!!!!   That's a swear word in Blighty !

;-)

Wendy