Conference hydra::dejavu

    A good book on this subject is the second in a series by Sanaya Roman
    (sp).  The title is Power of Personal Awareness (I think), a guide for
    sensitives.  It is a fast read and answers many of the questions you
    addressed in .0 along with exercises.
    
    Ro
    

    Emotional telepathy is actually higher emotions. These are radiated and
    can be directly felt by others. Most peoples' higher emotions are lost
    under the noise of thought and  physically dramatized emotions.
    Ordinary emotions are mental labels placed on certain patterns of muscular
    tension and their connected reverberations. We define ourselves and our
    boundaries with these tensions. If this tension can be dropped, the
    perception of duality between you and your invironment goes away.
    	In the dream state muscular activity is completely inhibited so
    ordinary emotional activity subtly changes. Without the inertia of the
    muscular system emotional responses can be intense and variable.
    In this state people are open to outside influences, but usually
    combine them with a jumble of random associations as ordinary dreams.
    	The experience, commonly reported by mystics, of  "oneness" with the
     universe is the experience of participating in the ocean of higher
     emotional vibrations.
    
    
    johN

    And if one of the pair has to run for a bus do both start breathing
    faster or does the one who is running pass out from lack of oxygen
    reaching the brain?

    Jamie.

    HAhaHAHAhaHA!   
    
    Sorry...that just struck my funny bone!
    
    Ahem.

    If I pick up the phone before it rang I would get dial tone. I very
    often know who will be on the phone when it does ring, but there are
    perfectly ordinary answers to that ability.

    None of what you say gives any support whatsoever to your statement
    that their breathing would synchronize. As your breathing tends to be
    directly related to the physical activity you are currently doing, it
    is highly unlikely that any two humans ever experience any prolonged
    periods of synchronization.

    Even if they did I can see no link and you do not provide any such
    link, between frequency of respiration and telepathy.

    Basically it sounds like a nice warm romantic fantasy to me.

    Jamie.

    re: .7 (Jamie)
    
         I suspect that *your* fantasies are another's actualities...
    
    Frederick
    

    Maybe the phone system is different over there.  Here there may be
    a delay of a second or two between the time that the connection has
    been "made" and the time that the high-voltage pulse which triggers
    a ring is sent down the line.  I have myself picked up a phone to make
    a call and had someone on the other side say brightly "Hello!".
    Doesn't happen often, and I can't say that I remember it ever been
    unexpectedly the person I was going to call.

    The breathing synchronization seems to be a muddled version of actual
    research.  So called "body language" research has shown that when
    people are busy communicating positively and cooperatively their
    breathing does tend to synchronize.  Love is not necessary -- though
    its probably easiest to observe in a couple sitting together and
    communicating strictly non-verbally (the breath demands of verbal
    speech obscure but do not eliminate the effect).  I would say that any
    remote synchronization would be the effect rather than the cause of
    "telepathic" communication.

    As Jamie points out in his gentle fashion, continual breath
    synchonization would have severe physiological consequences.  There
    could, however, safely be a long term *tendency* to synchronize.

    There have been some studies of apparent (short term) physiological
    synchronization via psi.  What I remember off hand, though, involved
    "brainwaves" and skin conductivity.  I'll see if there is anything on
    breathing.

					Topher

    Talk about telepathy!  When I started this note, I didn't mention
    synchronous breathing, but that's what prompted me to enter the note!
    
    When I am embracing my SO, and I meditate (focus light/love enery in a
    chakra of the moment, say mantra, etc.) she begins to _aggressively_
    synchronize her breathing with mine within a particular breath.  I take
    relatively long breaths when meditating, and if my concentration is
    strong, she seems to interupt her pattern to match mine.  This doesn't
    last more than a breath or two since we are very different in size, but
    the _tendancy_ to synchronize seems to be clearly there.
    
    In addition, if I focus light/love energy and say a mantra while
    concentrating on her chakras, she sighs audibly, actually gasping
    sometimes, in direct proportion to the intensity of my concentration.
    
    I don't consciously perceive any way that she can tell when I focus this
    concentration, since we are both lying very still, but she instantly 
    responds to my mental focus of energy.  I call her my "mantra meter" for testing
    my concentration. ;-)  When we first started doing this, I asked her if
    she was OK, since her response was so strong.  She says she likes it,
    but wants to be able to send back the same energy to me, so she has
    recently started doing TM.
    
    I haven't taught her my meditation process because it is a mishmash of
    techniques gathered over the years, but mostly from Ananda Marga.
    
    Any similar experiences?  Comments?
    
    Carter          
    

    Well Topher the telephone systems do appear to differ. The instant the
    call connects there is a ring pulse sent down the line. This is
    asynchronous to the regular ringing cycle. I think that the American
    system just connects and waits for the next ring in the cycle to
    activate it. This would sometimes cause a delay.

    But as I said I regularly have a good idea of who I am going to be
    talking to when I lift the phone, this requires no telepathic ability
    on my part, just logical deduction.

    Jamie.

    re: .11 (Jamie)
    
         Maybe not, Jamie...that is, maybe what you're calling "logical
    deduction" is the result of a psychic or intuitive feeling translating
    itself into some belief to which you then ascribe a logical 
    causal relationship.
         Which comes first?  
    
    Frederick
    

    No it is logical deduction. 
    
    Many people are quite predictable and tend to call at certain times.
    Others are guaranteed to call if some story breaks on the news. While
    still others will be returning my call. Fairly mundane and no
    paranormal powers necessary. 

    Jamie.

    re: .13 (Jamie)
    
         Yes, that's correct for me, too.  I try, however, to work
    myself away from perfection and predictability patterns.  Spontaneity
    goes a long way towards generating the type of magic which you
    seem to eschew.
         Eschew on that one for a while.  :-)
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .12 (Frederick)

>         Maybe not, Jamie...that is, maybe what you're calling "logical
>    deduction" is the result of a psychic or intuitive feeling translating
>    itself into some belief to which you then ascribe a logical 
>    causal relationship.

    And of course, Frederick, at least equally, maybe what you're calling a
    "psychic feeling" is the result of of logical deduction translating
    itself into some belief to which you then ascribe to a psychic
    connection.  The deductive powers of the subconscious are phenomenal
    at times.

RE: .13 (Jamie)

    Frederick has a point.  In so far as the conscious can rationalize
    an unconscious intuition (which is not, by definition, perceptable
    to "you") with a post facto logical deductive chain of reasoning, such
    unequivacle statements are, to some degree a matter of faith.  You
    *know* (by faith) that psi could not be involved so you *know* that
    logical deduction was the source.

    Of course, when the deductive chain is short, simple and compelling
    ("John said he'd call at 2PM, which is now, that's probably him") it
    is reasonable to give very high probability to an explanation in terms
    of logical deduction.  In other cases ("That must be, John -- the news
    story earlier today might have reminded him of me"), the best you can
    logically say is that you have no strong reason to believe that you
    arrived at the conclusion in any other but a logical manner.

    There have been successful experiments done with "covert psi" where
    people scored better than chance on "trivia tests" where the "correct"
    answers (multiple choice) had actually been chosen randomly.  The
    people involved thought that they were dredging up from their buried
    memories and using logical deduction to answer things like Twiggy's
    shoe size.

					    Topher

    As I think Topher alluded to, in some of the branches of psychological 
    linguistics, (psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics), the phenomena
    of people synchronizing is consistently observed to occur.  Including
    rhythm of gestures, types of gestures, rhythm of speech, tone of voice,
    rate of breathing, etc..  Some synchrony of EEG patterns would make sense.
    
    Psycholinguist author Elgin talks about this as a non-conscious
    automatic process.  In NLP, they take a different approach, and believe
    that people can intentionally mirror each other in order to induce
    such a state of synchrony, where other behaviors which were not
    previously synchronized would then become synchronized.  They borrowed
    the older term 'rapport' to describe this, and its presumed
    relationship to hypnotic phenomena.
    
    The most interesting part is that telepathic experiences are frequently
    reported in NLP classes where the participants are practicing 'rapport
    skills.'   They are not generally documented, but treated as a
    curiosity.   I think the source was Frogs_into_Princes, but I'm not
    positive.  Topher do you recall anything like this ?  I do think it 
    lends some credence (in my mind, anyway) to the contentions about 
    breathing synchronization and telepathic communication.   
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

RE: .16 (Todd)

    Its been a long time since I read _Frogs_, Todd, so I couldn't say
    with any certainty.  In any case "rapport" is almost a perfect
    situation for unconscious simulated telepathy to occur, making it
    virtually impossible to say whether or not anything paranormal may
    have occurred.  I would therefore say that it lends very little
    credence.

				    Topher

         
    Re.16
    
    Todd,
    
    You get the prize for using the highest number of lengthy words in a
    notes posting that I've seen so far.
    
    Musta been a bear to type all of them in.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re: .17,
    	*Oh*, come to think of it, I guess you're right.  Unless they
    	were very rigorous in determining what was going on, it would
    	be extremely easy to think there was more being communicated 
    	than there actually is.  That's a good point.  Thanks.
    
    						todd	

    re: .18, Cindy_Lou_Who_of_Whoville_who_was_no_more_than_two,
    
    	Thank you, but you're giving me too much credit.  Most of those
    	words are trade names.   I was name-dropping, not deliberately
    	obfuscating.  Err ... for the most part.  :*)
    
    	And stop picking on me, anyway.  If you add up the letters in those
    	Indian names you spread around sometimes, you might even win a
    	secondary prize yourself.  ;-) :-)
    
    						La Grinch

    
    You mean like Swami Kripalvanananananananadiji?
    
    (;^)
    
    Cindy

    I love the way that the paranormal solution is always sought in here
    before any normal answer is considered. Why you even suggest that I may
    have such gifts and use them unconsciously. I'm afraid that you are
    wrong. Thirty years of repairing computers has made me very observant
    to patterns and breaks in patterns. My mind has learned to follow a
    logical path to reach a conclusion based on the facts that I observe.

    Several times I have walked into a computer room, run a couple of
    tests, changed one circuit board and fixed the fault. This is not any
    abnormal ability it merely means that I have seen that particular fault
    before and remembered what the sypmtoms and fault were.

    However I can sometimes use my small talents to amaze people. Here is
    an example.

    We were visiting some Dutch friends who live in The Hague. After the
    introductions we were shown into their sitting room and I wandered over
    to the bay window and looked out onto the street. After A few minutes I
    pointed to a building on the other side of the street and not quite
    opposite us and said to our hostess, "Was the building that stood there
    before that one destroyed by a bomb in world war 2?" She was very
    surprised and said that a bomb had indeed landed on that exact spot.

    Given the fact that I had never been in that part of The Hague before
    how did I reach this conclusion?

    Jamie.
                                                            

  
  Re .-1 (Jamie)
  
  > Given the fact that I had never been in that part of The Hague before
  > how did I reach this conclusion?                                     
  
    i) The houses on either side were pre-war styles whilst that one was
       post-war.
   ii) The house was in the same style & materials but those on either side
       had shrapnel marks on the walls while the one that "should" have had
       most damage was unmarked.
  iii) You've got good eyesight and read a plaque on the wall saying "On this
       site was the house of a Famous Dutch Person. It was sadly destroyed
       during an air-raid in July 1941".
  
  Frank

    i) 	 Well several houses in the street had been replaced since the war.
         But that one was the only one that had been destroyed by a bomb.

    ii)  I could see no damage on any building in the street.

    iii) No. If that had been there my hostess would have shown no
         surprise.

    Jamie.

  
  OK, two more quick tries :
  
   iv) Difference in ground level between adjacent buildings ?
  
    v) Presence v. absence of a cellar ?
  
  Questions :
  
    Was the sitting room at ground level or upstairs ("looked out onto the
    street") ?
    Were the houses opposite terraced, widely separated, semi-detached ?
    [ or are these questions irrelevant to the conclusion reached ? ]
  
  > iii) No. If [a plaque] had been there my hostess would have shown no
  >      surprise.                                                
  
  Well, some people assume that everyone's eyesight is as poor as their own
  and also that she might simply not have noticed (oblivious to the obvious).
  It was worth a try though :-)
  
  Frank

>    You mean like Swami Kripalvanananananananadiji?
    
    	Somehow, I remembered it as longer, but yeah that's one of
    	the ones.  :*)

    Re .25

    Well it is difficult to tell if a building has a cellar from the
    outside so that is out. Anyway the absence or presence of a cellar or a
    variation in levels would not in anyway signify a bomb blast as opposed
    to any other form of demolition.

    A photo would not help you. As the primary clue was difficult to see
    let alone photograph.

    Jamie.

    ...the suspense is gripping, isn't it?
    
    
    ;-)
    Frederick
    

    Well I'll tell you all tomorrow.

    BTW Frederick the prefix Mac, in its several spellings, in a Scottish
    surname means "son of" an alternative is the suffix "son". Thus my
    surname Anderson means son of Andrew and we are related to the Mac
    Andrews. However Mac Anderson is therefore really a bit contrived.

    Jamie.

   The new building was a stand alone house.

    Never mind the last reply.  Jamie said the clue couldn't be photographed.


							Terza

RE: .22 (Jamie)

>    I love the way that the paranormal solution is always sought in here
>    before any normal answer is considered.

    I don't see that that is what happened here -- but then I lack your
    deductive gifts :-).  What I see is that the possibility of a
    paranormal "solution" (explanation for the incidents) was considered.
    Of course, if you have closed your mind off to the possiblity a priori
    then this is a worthless activity.  If, however, you are open to the
    possibility of unconscious psi phenomenon -- as strongly suggested by
    thousands of controlled experiments -- then it is a reasonable,
    interesting and perhaps even important possibility to consider.  Given
    the characteristics of the anomalous experimental results refered
    to as "psi", is it plausible that the cause of those anomalies might
    manifest in "natural settings" for a skeptic, but only when that
    skeptic can find justifications for the information within his/her
    strongly held belief system?  I think that the answer is "yes, given
    what we know about the rationalizing powers of the human mind and the
    characteristics of the psi anomaly, it is plausible" though of low
    probability, perhaps, in most particular cases.  All this is part of
    the process called "rational enquiry."

    Basically -- while it would be irrational to conclude that this *did*
    take place, it is quite rational to consider that it *might* and to
    think about the consequences.  To state that it did not without
    examining the testable predictions of either competing hypothesis *is*
    irrational.

    As for the puzzle -- folks this is what is called a "sucker bet", one
    which Jamie can't lose.  There are thousands of things, each a priori
    unlikely, which *might* have tipped him off, requiring only that he
    happen to notice.  (He might of course have missed thousands of equally
    informative clues to other interesting facts about where he was, but he
    can't tell us about that, because he doesn't know about them).  We can
    play the guessing game indefinitely.  If no one guesses it, somehow
    Jamie "has won" even though he has never played this much harder game.
    If someone *does* stumble upon the right "solution" they have merely
    played catch-up with much (collective) labor to what Jamie did
    spontaneously with apparent ease and rapidity.

					Topher

Re: .22

>    I love the way that the paranormal solution is always sought in here
>    before any normal answer is considered.

Just because we suggest a paranormal answer does NOT mean we have NOT considered
"ordinary" solutions.

I have not spent 30 years as a customer service rep, and software engineer 
(just 10), but I HAVE learned logic.  And, Jamie, there is evidence in this note 
conference that yours is faulty.  I HAVE come to conclusions about personal 
experiences that I feel are paranormal ONLY BECAUSE I have exhausted the 
"normal" solutions that I am aware of.

People asking for causes in this conference may have exhausted the normal
solutions as well, and are looking for alternatives.

Jamie, please refrain from the usage of absolutes in the future, such as 
"always".



Beth
a skeptical believer

RE: .33 (Beth)

>Jamie, please refrain from the usage of absolutes in the future, such as 
>"always".

    He's welcome to use them, as far as I'm concerned.  They make the
    irrationality of his statements that much more obvious.

				Topher

    Um... I was hoping that we could use this note to share _non-mental_
    telepathy experiences.  Do-it-yourself shaktipat kind of stuff would be
    an example.  Still no one out there experiencing telepathic chakra
    stimulation?  Any volunteers willing to try it on your SO tonight? 
    (Please! Good vibes only!) It's getting lonely out here!  
    
    Carter          

    How about this:
    
RTw  11/23 1039  INDIAN CULT LEADER SUGGESTS SEXLESS ORGASM TO ...

INDIAN CULT LEADER SUGGESTS SEXLESS ORGASM TO FIGHT AIDS
    NEW DELHI, Nov 23, Reuter - An Indian cult leader is proposing using
esoteric energy techniques to achieve fluidless sex -- or "flex" -- as a
way to avoid AIDS.
    Swami Chaitanya Keerti, said on Saturday: "Since sex is fast becoming
more dangerous than Russian roulette now that semen, saliva and tears are
medically ackowledged as possible routes of (AIDS) transmission...there are
going to be new ways of making love."
    Keerti, who edits the Pune-based Rajneesh commune's Osho Times
International, said: "Thousands of meditators around the world are
experimenting with new ways of making love with fluidless sex, or "flex'."
    "Flex" could help lovers "attain the same orgasmic experience through a
synthesis of meditation," he said.
    Keerti said fluidless sex used a variety of esoteric energy techniques
gathered from ancient spiritual paths, contemporary psychology and Osho's
unique insights into human energy systems.
    Osho is another name for Bhagwan Rajneesh, who founded a cult known for
its sex therapies which gained a worldwide following. He was deported from
the United States to India after pleading guilty to immigration fraud and
died in 1990 following an unexplained illness.
    "It's time we all face the cold, hard facts of reality and realise that
something like fluidless sex is the only intelligent, meditative response
to the growing dangers of a post-AIDS world," Keerti said.
 REUTER JHN WS PAE


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA09148; Mon, 2 Dec 91 07:48:23 -0800
% Received: by firewall.nielsen.com (/\KD/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.3) id <[email protected]>; Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:47 CS
% Received: by nis.naitc.com (/\KD/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.3) id <[email protected]>; Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:48 CS
% Received: by ad-6.naitc.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.38) id <[email protected]>; Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:47 CS
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:47 CST
% From: [email protected] (Tejwansh Anand)
% To: [email protected], [email protected], advlsi::mallya, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

    Ok here is how it happened. I walked up to look out the window, as you
    remember it was a bay window and consisted of a window parallel to the
    street and two at about 45� angle to it allowing a view up and down the
    street. I looked first straight out and then to the right, where the
    house in question was and noticed nothing unusual. Then I looked
    through the left hand window and saw something different. 

    The all the panes front and right hand windows were of the type of
    glass that slightly distorts the image while the panes on the left
    hand one were all almost optically perfect. This was a pattern that I
    had seen once before. You now see why a photograph would have had great
    difficulty in showing it.

    During the war a bomb had landed near my grandparents' apartment and
    had blown out all the windows in the house bar one. All four panes in
    it were spared. The reason was that their apartment was on a corner and
    the window that survived was edgewise on to the blast. The type of
    glass used when the apartment was built was almost optically perfect
    while the later type of glass was made by a cheaper, but inferior,
    method that put some distortions into it.

    Having recognised the pattern I looked at the building that was
    edgewise on to the odd window and noticed that it was built in a post
    war style. So it was a fair bet that it had been blown up.

    Simple observation, pattern recognition and logical deduction. No
    paranormal powers required. Yet my hostess was convinced that I must
    have had some extra powers to have done this, until I explained it
    to her.

    Many of the things that I read in here which are attributed to
    paranormal senses are usually done by the normal ones, which seem to be
    so underrated in here.

    Topher I do not think that even you can twist it so that I may have
    subconsciously used an unknown paranormal power in such a simple case as
    this one.

    Jamie.
                                                              

    re: .39,
    
    I remember reading about some studies where that part about
    primary breathing flow cycling periodically from one nostril to the other 
    was apparently verified with a number of people.  I've never been able to 
    notice it in myself, though ?  Does this vary from person to person
    or am I just not sensitive enough to it to feel it ?
    
    							todd

    Unless one nostril is blocked by mucus I breath through both nostrils
    equally, and unless I physically close off one nostril I cannot control
    the allocation of the flow between nostrils. Am I is some way abnormal
    in this or is the author of .40 having us on?

    One point that I have noticed is that when you are lying in bed one
    nostril tends to block with mucus before the other. This appears to be
    caused by gravity as it is the lower one which blocks first.

    Jamie.

RE: .41 (Jamie)

>    Unless one nostril is blocked by mucus I breath through both nostrils
>    equally, and unless I physically close off one nostril I cannot control
>    the allocation of the flow between nostrils. Am I is some way abnormal
>    in this or is the author of .40 having us on?

    According to some physiology texts I have read sometime in the distant
    path (note: mainstream) you are in some way abnormal in this.  Of
    course many people attribute the normal, cyclic blocking of the
    alternate nostrils by the swelling of the mucous membranes as due to
    "mucous" (which it is, of course, in part).  Yes, you can influence
    this by lying on your side -- I don't know whether it is by movement of
    mucous (do you have a punctured septum?) or blood flow or something
    more subtle or some combination.  In fact, this is recommended by Yogis
    as part of breath control, so they are not unaware of the effect.

    This doesn't mean that I buy the solar-lunar associations, though they
    are not entirely implausible given the not altogether mythical
    hemispheric specialization.  The connection would have to be fairly
    complex, and indirect though.

				    Topher

RE: .37 (Jamie)

>    Topher I do not think that even you can twist it so that I may have
>    subconsciously used an unknown paranormal power in such a simple case as
>    this one.

    I don't have to twist it at all, Jamie.  There is nothing here to argue
    against what I have said before.  I can only suppose that your
    objections would seem to be based on a pre-19th century, prescientific
    view of human cognitive functioning, wherein you are consciously aware
    of all of the "important" steps in your own thinking.  This has been
    thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, starting over a century ago.

    You "solved" the "puzzle" (actually created *and* solved the puzzle)
    because of an observation you need not have payed attention to, and an
    association you need not have made, and made on that basis a reasonable
    but not unquestionable deduction which you nevertheless felt enough
    confidence in to state publically.  Why?  The most likely explanation
    is conventional -- though poorly understood -- congnitive processes.
    But its *you* who cannot "twist" things so that it is not plausible
    that *if* subconscious paranormal processes exist that they might not
    add to the saliance of the consciously perceived steps.

					Topher

    re: .41 (Jamie),
    
    	I found it a little hard to believe myself, but I recall it seemed 
    	to be a fairly well documented effect when I first read about it.
    
    	I don't neccessarily support
    	the contentions about the link between alternate nostril
    	air flow and hemisphere specialization, though.   My understanding
    	is similar to (although probably inferior to) Topher's on the
    	complexity of the relationships between air flow, hemisphere
    	speciallization, and states of consciousness.  Trying to translate
    	mystical and meditational systems into physiological terms is 
    	still quite problematic in my opinion.  They still need to be
    	understood in terms of their own symbol systems primarily
    	(notable attempts as 'Westernized' short-cut systems
    	notwithstanding).  
    
    	Teachers sometimes try to support their meditational systems with 
    	physiological explanations, but I think the systems often are better 
    	off on their own, until the underlying mechanism is better 
    	understood, or else they stand to lose credibility if the postulated 
    	physiological links are somehow discredited.  Sort of like destroying 
    	a religion because some aspect of literal interpretation of their 
    	beliefs is discredited (e.g. hinging Christianity on radical 
    	Creationism is probably comparable in some ways to hinging
    	Hindu/Yogic meditational practice on speculative theories of
    	how alternate nostril breathing interacts with hemisphere 
    	specialization).   Maybe a poor example, but I'd guess it
    	helps get the point across, or at least inspires a rebuttal.  :-)
    
    						kind regards,
    	
    	todd_who_has_a_cold_in_BOTH_nostrils_right_now_and_therefore_
    	is_also_abnormal.

    
    Re.breathing exercises
    
    I'll post some pranayams (breathing exercises) in the Kripalu Yoga
    topic within the next few weeks.  Then you can all try them for
    yourselves.           
    
    Cindy

Re last_few:

Everybody: do yourselves a favor and breathe through your mouthes.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .43

    >But its *you* who cannot "twist" things so that it is not plausible
    >that *if* subconscious paranormal processes exist that they might not
    >add to the saliance of the consciously perceived steps.

    If paranormal subconscious processes exist, and everyone routinely uses
    them then, by definition, they would be normal and not paranormal.

    You can wrap it up in as much psyco-babble as you like, Topher and in
    doing so you may confuse many, however as the case that I quoted
    required absolutely nothing but pattern recognition and a little
    deduction, nothing paranormal was needed. 

    Having lived in the house for most of the first 20 years of my life
    and, seen this pattern on a daily basis, did fix it firmly into my
    mind, seeing a similar pattern years later just jogged my memory,
    hardly an abnormal event. 

    It was not as you suggest, "because of an observation you need not have
    payed attention to", that is the sort of detail that I routinely
    notice, as I said my job has made me most attentive to patterns and
    breaks in patterns. You may wander through life paying little attention
    to your surroundings, but I can't.

    Now you may think that I fix computers by intuition but I don't, I do
    it by a logical process which I worked out years ago. It is a nice
    linear, step by step system, in which possible causes are individually
    eliminated. I was was interested to find out that doctors use a very
    similar system when examining patients.

    So as the paranormal is not required for me to work, I don't use it. You
    seem, for some reason of your own, to be unable to accept that people
    can and do work without paranormal assistance. There may well be
    engineers who use paranormal methods of fixing equipment, but I am not
    one of them.

    I would however be most interested in your exact description of what
    paranormal powers I am supposed to have used. Or are they so vague as
    to defy description? 

    Remember Occam's Razor and try not to complicate theories unnecessarily.

    Jamie.

    
    Re.47
    
    Jamie,
    
    Do you acknowledge the existance of the energy body (also known as the
    human energy field)?  
    
    Cindy

RE: .47 (Jamie)

>    If paranormal subconscious processes exist, and everyone routinely uses
>    them then, by definition, they would be normal and not paranormal.

    Well, I must say, you have to admire the chutzpah (pardon my
    French :-)) of someone who though apparently totally ignorant of a
    field is willing to publically contradict someone expert in it for his
    usage of a technical term from the field.  Whatever do you imagine
    that the adjective "paranormal" means?

>    You can wrap it up in as much psyco-babble as you like, Topher and in

    I could, I suppose, but I certainly didn't.  "Psycho-babble" does not
    mean "to use elementary technical terms from psychology in a correct
    and relevant way".  Don't you think its just a wee bit presumptuous to
    make arguments, supposedly in support of rationality, when you are
    unable to even interpret simple statements (i.e., they are "babble" to
    you) in the language used for describing the relevant evidence?

>    required absolutely nothing but pattern recognition and a little
>    deduction, nothing paranormal was needed.

    I quite agree (at least I think I do, since you apparently have your
    own idiosyncratic meaning for the word "paranormal" its a little hard
    to agree or disagree with any confidence with any statement you might
    make about it).  In fact, I've said so explicitly several times in this
    thread.  These discussions would be much more interesting if you would
    read what I say and respond to it rather than setting up strawmen
    (or strawwomen) and knocking them down.

>    Having lived in the house for most of the first 20 years of my life
>    and, seen this pattern on a daily basis, did fix it firmly into my
>    mind, seeing a similar pattern years later just jogged my memory,
>    hardly an abnormal event.

    No, sounds quite plausible.  I certainly would not suggest that there
    was anything abnormal taking place.  In what way does this weaken my
    case in the slightest?

    On a side note, do you imagine that the existence of a common
    folk-psychology phrase ("just jogged my memory") implies that there is
    any understanding of how that process takes place and any known way to
    reliably predict what associations (pardon the technical term) will be
    made?  In other words, do you think that because you have a name for
    a process you understand it?

>    breaks in patterns. You may wander through life paying little attention
>    to your surroundings, but I can't.

    Well, I'm a grown-up so I may if I feel like it, but generally I don't.
    Sometimes I am concentrating really hard on some chain of thought and
    don't pay much attention to what's around me, but usually I would say
    I'm a pretty good observationalist.

    Are you claiming to notice *everything* in your environment which may
    prove interesting upon reflection?  That is, to have a conscious level
    of information processing hundreds or thousands of times the normal,
    and therefore, necessarily an IQ several times (at the least) the
    highest recorded one?  I don't know whether or not that is precisely a
    paranormal claim (since current cognitive theory does not support a
    well-defined limit to intelligence) but it is certainly an
    extraordinary one.

    Or are you merely claiming that you consciously notice a few more
    things than most people do?  In that case there is *some* amount of
    subconscious filtering and processing of your perceptions (sorry about
    using more technial terms -- its really hard to talk about this stuff
    accurately using only grammar school vocabulary) in which case you are
    in no way answering my arguments.

>    It is a nice linear, step by step system, in which possible causes are
>    individually eliminated. I was was interested to find out that doctors
>    use a very similar system when examining patients.

    Now I get to take off my "parapsychology" hat and put on my "AI" hat
    (its right here on my desk since it is one of the things that DEC pays
    me for on occasion).

    Attempts to automate medical diagnosis according to such claimed
    "systems" have shown pretty conclusively that there is more "intuition"
    (information processing which the doctors are not directly aware of)
    going on then the doctors interviewed in building the systems were
    aware of.

    By dint of a great deal of brilliant work, a certain amount of
    deduction about what processes might account for some of that
    subconcious processing were encorporated.  The most successful of these
    systems compensate for the rest of the "intuition" by dealing with very
    narrow well-defined tasks and taking advantage of the strengths of
    digital computers.  Human diagnosticians eliminate intuitively a large
    number of irrelevant observations and implausible diagnoses and
    consciously, systematically examine the few remaining alternatives.
    Computer diagnosticians eliminate a few irrelevant observations and
    implausible diagnoes and systematically examine the thousands of
    remaining alternatives.  The results are, in the best cases, a system
    which does better (or at least more consitantly) than human
    diagnosticians for simple and moderately hard problems.  They break
    down, however, for most hard problems -- for example, those where
    there is multiple pathologies, especially if one of the pathologies
    is outside the limited domain of expertise of the system (heaven help
    the liver patient diagnosed by a computer who happens to have an
    elevated fever due to a simple cold).

    Perhaps you use a diagnostic process which is purely logical, but I can
    be pretty confident that doctors do not -- though they may think that
    they do.  The conscious logical system is only part of the whole.

>    You seem, for some reason of your own, to be unable to accept that
>    people can and do work without paranormal assistance.

    The reason of my own is called "skepticism" (however badly that word is
    abused to mean its opposite) -- an unwillingness to accept any thesis
    as final truth without evidence.  My working hypothesis is that people
    can and that at least some mostly do work without significant influence
    of paranormal cognitive processes (this is no more "paranormal
    assistance" than your remembering something is "mnemonic assistance").
    Given the laboratory evidence it is plausible that there is some
    amount of paranormal functioning going on in everyday activities -- the
    question which I consider open and you consider closed is how much.
    Perhaps the paranormal normally has little impact or perhaps it is
    part-and-parcel of all the mysterious workings of subconscious
    information processing (I lean to a point somewhere between these two,
    with, perhaps a bias towards the former).

>    There may well be engineers who use paranormal methods of fixing
>    equipment, but I am not one of them.

    Unless your job is *much* more routine and mechanical than is likely,
    you don't really have a basis for saying this about yourself.

>    I would however be most interested in your exact description of what
>    paranormal powers I am supposed to have used. Or are they so vague as
>    to defy description?

    Who said you were "supposed" to have used any paranormal "powers?"
    I certainly did not.  It is you who have made specific claims, not I.
    Its not so much vagueness as that there are so *many* different
    alternatives to your claim.

    Once more -- perhaps this time with your superhuman powers of
    observation you'll notice what I'm actually saying:  Each of those
    alternatives are individually unlikely and even collectively they have
    low probability.  The most likely explanation for any particular
    "deduction" on your part is overwhelminly conventional (if
    ill-understood) cognitive processes.  It is, however, illogical to
    declare on the basis of any evidence which can logically be available
    to you that the probability of a paranormal component to the deduction
    is zero.

>    Remember Occam's Razor and try not to complicate theories
>    unnecessarily.

    I am a firm believer in William of Okham's Principle of Parsimony, and
    try always to adhere to it.  I believe that it supports my position,
    not yours.  If I had claimed at any time that any particular deduction
    or for that matter any deduction on your part at all had been
    significantly influenced by paranormal processes then I would indeed be
    in violation of the principle.  As it stands, it is you who are making
    unjustified assumptions about the *non-paranormality* of unobserved
    processes.

				    Topher

RE: .49 (me)

    Before anyone else takes their shot:

>    (heaven help the liver patient diagnosed by a computer who happens to
>    have an elevated fever due to a simple cold).

    Fortunately its quite rare for computers used in AI to come down with
    colds and thereby develop an elevated fever. :-)

				    Topher

    RE: .0 (me)
    
    Is _love_ telepathic?  Have _you_ experienced it?  Is a distinction
    between "love telepathy" and "mental telepathy" valid?  Is any one else
    out there trying to systematically increase their capacity for loving
    telepathically?
    
    Carter  

    Re .39

    The human nostril is normally slightly over one inch long and feeds
    directly into the nasopharynx, from there the air moves through the
    oropharynx, mixing with any air breathed in through the mouth and onto
    the trachea where it is split into the two bronci going to each lung.
    I cannot see any relevance whatsoever in which nostril it entered the
    body.

    Re .48

    No.

    Re .49

    My goodness Topher you really cannot be concise can you. For starters I
    have no superhuman powers of observation, I see the same as anyone
    else. However having made my living from using them they have improved
    over the years.

    Now you may be unsure of how your mind works and may not be able to
    plot your thinking process from start to finish when solving a problem,
    but I can. 
    
    The sequence used in fixing things, is for me, a well used path that I
    follow, I do not blunder blindly along. So with each step accounted for
    by normal methods could you please explain, and in less than five
    hundred polysyllabic words, exactly what non normal thought process I
    require or use subconsciously to reach my conclusion.

    Or are you just saying that as I cannot prove 100% that there is no
    non normal processes going on in my brain I must assume that there are
    some and I am using them. 

    Should the latter be the case then you are indeed guilty of
    unnecessarily complicating the theory.
    
    Jamie.

	Given Jamie's answer to Cindy's question in .48
	"No."
	and his reply to Topher's (very well written) .49
	I've come to the conclusion that I agree with Jamie.
	He has "no superhuman powers of observation".
	In fact, I'll wager he is actually a machine.
	An electro-mechanical devise devoid of human spirit.
	A very efficient one at that.
	
	Sorry to rathole this further. The basenoter is really trying to
	get the discussion back on track.
	
	Jay

    For a moment there I thought that you were going to say that I was
    naught but a heartless machine.

    Jamie.

    Hi Carter (.51),
    
    I'll try to help out here to get the note back on track. 
    
    <Is _love_ telepathic?  Have _you_ experienced it?
    
    Hmmm, this is one I've been working on the past several months and
    it has been too puzzling to come to any real conclusions.  The only
    thing I've learned for sure is that our 'higher selves' (or whatever
    term you care to give that part of us) know what's going on, are at
    work behind the scenes and all works out for our greatest good to learn
    what we've come here to learn.  
    
    I would guess the 'communication' that is carried on from the heart
    center would be different from that on the purely mental level.  Since
    I believe we are all 'one', I think communication takes place on those
    levels at all times.  I consciously try to communicate telepathically
    or otherwise from the heart center.  I kind of know when I'm operating
    (even telepathically) from the ego space.
    
    Sorry to write so vaguely, I find the process difficult to describe.
    
    Ro
    
    
    

Re: .51

There was a science fiction story that used the term telempathy.  The author 
defined it as full communication between people that can detect emotions.  
None of the "words in my head" associated with telepathy, but full understanding
without the linguistics overtop.  Is this what you mean by "love telepathy"?
Or are you looking for a definition?

Others may question my conclusions, but, based on things read, and experienced,
positive emotions between people (love, friendship, trust) will enhance 
non-verbal, including telepathic, empathic, and perhaps telempathic, 
communication.  The most important of the positive feelings, in my opinion, is
trust.  If you do not trust someone to know you (not just about you, and what 
you tell them), then non-verbal communication will be difficult; you either 
consciously or subconsciously build barriers to protect your "sensitive" areas.

I wish I could tell how this ties in with chakras, but I don't know enough 
to even know where to begin.

Beth

Re: -1

 >>The most important of the positive feelings, in my opinion, is trust.  
 >> If you do not trust someone to know you (not just about you, and what 
 >>you tell them), then non-verbal communication will be difficult; you either 
 >>consciously or subconsciously build barriers to protect your "sensitive" 
   areas.

	Oh, I agree Beth.  Trust is a biggy.  I have also found that the
	deeper my feelings go the more I can *feel* someone elses. It is 
	when we 'really' love that we pay attention to detail, I suppose.

	What a nice topic for the up-coming holidays.

	8-)  Mikki	

    
    Re.52
    
    Jamie,
    
    Regarding the human energy field, what kind of proof would convince you
    that it does exist?
    
    It does exist, whether you believe it or not.  While there are a lot of
    things labeled paranormal that I sincerely question as well, having
    worked with my own energy body for the last year now, I can say that it
    does exist.  It's not a belief.  All of the alternative healing methods
    - accupuncture, accupressure, chiropracters, and so on, are based on
    its existance.   
    
    Cindy

    re: .58 (Cindy)
    
          I agree...that it exists.  I disagree with claiming it isn't 
    a belief.  ("Beliefs precede experience.")
    
    Frederick
    

                                                      
    Re.59
    
    Frederick,
    
    Perhaps so, using that logic.  I was thinking of 'the world is flat 
    vs. the world is round'.  It was (sort of) round all along...long 
    before anyone believed it was.  
    
    However in the book "The Body Of Light", they state you don't have to
    believe that the energy field exists...you just have to have an open
    mind enough to try the experiments yourself.  So belief in the
    'possibility' that it exists would most definitely have to be there 
    before one is in any way open to the experience.  
    
    Cindy

    re: .60 (Cindy)
    
         Well, was it round all along?  Or was the belief there all
    along?  If the belief was never there, then it couldn't be...
    but *somebody* had a belief somewhere that it was so, and once
    others believed it, it became round.  After all, we can't prove
    something was a certain way prior to the first thought that it
    was that way.  
         How then, to your example, would we know that the world was
    round long before anyone believed it was?  Because of carbon-14
    dating?  Because of the way we now see the stars?  Or is it
    *possibly* because we believe that the stars were there then and
    that the world had to be that way, then, also?
         In other words, we really can't prove time-based suppositions.
    Any proof utilizes current beliefs...
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .52 (Jamie)

>    I cannot see any relevance whatsoever in which nostril it entered the
>    body.

    Neither can I.  But a limit to our imagination is not a limit on the
    universe.  An observation has been made -- a perceived psychological
    effect of breathing through one nostril or another.  It is up to us to
    explain that observation.  Perhaps it is an expectation effect. Perhaps
    it is complete delusion.  Perhaps the air doesn't mix as well as you
    think and there is some asymmetry in the lungs.  Perhaps there is a
    slight amount of blood oxygenation at the mucous membrane which has
    subtle effects on the brain.  Perhaps the effect of closing one nostril
    causes adjustments which have psychophysiological consequences.
    Perhaps something I haven't thought of.  These are of varying
    probability -- some very, very unlikely.  Without data it is religion,
    not science to say that these are not true.  Have you made a study
    of the claimed psychological effects to see if they really happen?

>    My goodness Topher you really cannot be concise can you.

    I find that it is easy to be concise when you are being simplistic
    and/or dogmatic, but that accuracy and relevancy require more words.  I
    try to say more than simply "you're wrong!" -- I try to explain where I
    believe that the facts or the logical arguments differ.  Its easy to
    say "Time is absolute", it takes a bit more effort to explain what
    relativity says about the dependence of time on the observer.

    I could, of course, trim a bit more off by spending 5 or 6 times as
    much time in editing, but there are only so many hours a day I can
    devote to this.

>    Now you may be unsure of how your mind works and may not be able to
>    plot your thinking process from start to finish when solving a problem,
>    but I can.

    Jamie, is this one of your jokes?  Once again you seem to be claiming
    superhuman mental capacity, and I really don't know whether to assume
    that you are just so completely unaware of what's around and within you
    or whether you just think that acting ignorant and unaware is humorous.

    I'm in the position of someone who says to me: "You may not be able to
    look around you and see that the Earth is flat, but I can!"  The belief
    of individuals having a complete and accurate conscious awareness of
    their own thought processes has been shown experimentally (over and
    over and over again) to be delusional.  It doesn't require elaborate
    experiments, though -- like noting that the mast of a ship disappears
    first, it can be seen simply by observing things that go on around you
    and thinking about them a bit.

    Here's a challenge for you, Jamie.  People have been trying for the
    last 3000 years to produce a coherent account of human thought
    processes -- which you claim to do easily by self-examination.  One
    form that this task has taken of late is "AI programs".  If you really
    have the understanding of your own thought processes you claim to, it
    should be a snap for you to write a significant AI program.

    Write a program to do something routine for a human being.  Just
    examine your own thought processes and write down how they approach the
    problem.  There's lots of things to choose from.  For example, you
    shouldn't need all that high-falutin' linguistic theory to write a
    program which can read and understand newspaper stories.  All that
    theory -- with all its disputes and arguments -- are simply attempts
    to capture what you claim to be able to perceive directly, so you
    don't have to worry about it.  Have it read a story and summarize
    what it is about.  Of course, you could choose other tasks -- for
    example, a program which duplicates your diagnostic procedures (asking
    questions of someone with limited training in the place of making
    observations).

>    So with each step accounted for by normal methods could you please
>    explain, and in less than five hundred polysyllabic words, exactly what
>    non normal thought process I require or use subconsciously to reach my
>    conclusion.

    Let's see I think I can manage that: none.  I do not claim that you
    require any non-normal thought processes.  You are making the claim,
    I am denying that you have a basis for that claim.

    But this is a "are you still beating your wife?" type question.  By
    answering it, I have implicitly accepted false premises.

    First, we have not been talking about "non normal" processes.  At least
    I haven't.  We have been talking about paranormal processes.

    Second, each step has not been accounted for by non-paranormal
    processes.  The steps you are almost certainly talking about,
    constitute a very shallow outline of what is going on -- unless you
    have an immensely trivial job.  A very conservative comparison would
    be to a one page outline of all the works of Dostoyevsky.  It may be
    useful.  It may be accurate.  It may even be profound.  But it is
    not complete.

    Say you start by asking "What seems to be the problem?"  The person with
    a complaint starts with "Well it..."  Whole books have been written
    about how people figure out what pronouns such as "it" refer to.  (Yes
    this is an "easy case" -- but how do you recognize that it is an easy
    case).  And we are probably barely started with your "first step".

>    Or are you just saying that as I cannot prove 100% that there is no
>    non normal processes going on in my brain I must assume that there are
>    some and I am using them.

    No, Jamie.  For the however-many-times-it-has-been-plus-one time, I am not
    saying that.  I am saying that since you (and everyone else) only knows
    about a tiny percentage of the processes going on in your mind (I'm
    more concerned with mind than brain, here), *you* *cannot* *assume*
    that any decision you (or anyone else) make is not influenced at least
    in some small way by a paranormal process.  There is, in fact, a large
    body of evidence for the hypothesis that at least sometimes, for at
    least some people, such an influence does occur, and a conscious effort
    to use paranormal phenomenon is not particularly relevant to that
    occurrence.

				Topher

    >Perhaps the air doesn't mix as well as you think and there is some
    >asymmetry in the lungs. 

    Yes the lungs are asymmetrical, but even if the air from each nostril
    fed directly to each lung it would make no difference through which it
    was inhaled. The originated blood from both lungs gets well mixed as it
    goes through the heart and shares a common artery on the way to the
    brain. 
    
    >Perhaps there is a slight amount of blood oxygenation at the mucous
    >membrane which has subtle effects on the brain.

    Sounds plausible unless you think about it. The blood in the mucous
    membrane will not go to the brain, it will be returned to the heart.
    The brain is fed arterial blood, freshly originated.

    >Have you made a study of the claimed psychological effects to see if
    >they really happen?

    No. Claims should be substantiated by those who make them. If we try to
    disprove everyone's wild claims, within the parameters you suggest,
    it would be counter productive. If there is any measurable effect from
    this asymmetrical breathing then let those who claim it demonstrate it.
    Until then it is just an unsubstantiated theory, and a pretty wild one
    at that.

    >>Now you may be unsure of how your mind works and may not be able to
    >>plot your thinking process from start to finish when solving a problem,
    >>but I can.

    >Jamie, is this one of your jokes? 

    No, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. We will take the
    example of fixing a computer. When I have fixed it I can go back and
    run through each of the observations and the logical steps that I made
    to reach my conclusion. 

    This is perfectly simple and I have on many occasions explained them to
    a trainee, either after the event or as we went along. Should I have had
    any powers that are not the normal ones I would have had an unexplained
    gap in my logic train, and the trainee would not be able to follow me.

    For example I would never say something like, "I had a hunch that it
    was a memory problem as we came through the door." However I might say,
    "As we came through the door I noticed some alarm were lamps lit which
    indicated that a lot of peripherals were having difficulty reaching
    memory." The trainee would have noticed a lot of red lamps lit and
    little else. You will notice the complete lack of superhuman skills.
                                                 
    >I am saying that since you (and everyone else) only knows about a tiny
    >percentage of the processes going on in your mind (I'm more concerned
    >with mind than brain, here), *you* *cannot* *assume* that any decision
    >you (or anyone else) make is not influenced at least in some small way
    >by a paranormal process. 

    Well Topher to quote Occam's exact writing, "It is vain to do with more
    what can be done with fewer". In other words, if everything in some
    science can be interpreted without assuming this or that hypothetical
    entity, there is no grounds for assuming it. You seem to be doing
    exactly the opposite of this.

    Therefore as there is no requirement for other than normal abilities to
    do my job there is no need to assume them. 

    Jamie.

Re .64:

    >regarding energy fields:
    >
    >anyone ever heard of kierlan photography?

Kirlian photography is discussed extensively in Note 65 (love that this 
should be reply .65).

There's a lot of question about just what Kirlian photography _is_.

Steve Kallis, Jr

    
    To Topher and Jamie,
    
    I found sufficient proof for what the alternate nostril breathing 
    actually does (effects on the body, etc.), and will enter it later 
    on today. 
    
    Cindy

    
>    >Perhaps there is a slight amount of blood oxygenation at the mucous
>    >membrane which has subtle effects on the brain.
>
>    Sounds plausible unless you think about it. The blood in the mucous
>    membrane will not go to the brain, it will be returned to the heart.
>    The brain is fed arterial blood, freshly originated.


Then why is it that chemicals that are inhaled get to the brain faster?  The 
numbers of mind affecting substances (tobacco among them) have quicker effects
when passed through the nasal passages.  It is documented (I forget where) that
the vessels that pass through the nasal and mouth can get things to the brain 
quicker than things inhaled through the mouth (where vessels in the lungs pick 
it up).

Beth

    Re .67

    I agree that oxygen can pass through the nasal mucous membrane, I also
    agree that some drugs pass through it too. The drugs may well pass
    through this membrane easier than through the lungs. However the blood
    then goes to the heart, through the lungs, back through the heart and
    then off to the rest of the body, some of the blood will go to the
    brain.

    There is no direct flow of blood from the nose to the brain. 
    
    Therefore any oxygenation of the blood from a particular nostril will
    be well mixed by the time it reaches the brain, not to mention the
    massive amount of oxygenation it will receive as it passes through the
    lungs.

    Jamie.

    My feelings of euphoria during meditation are directly related to the
    degree to which I conciously focus on the air entering my left nostril. 
    For me, this is a sort of "mental" as opposed to "physical" pranayama. 
    I do not physically alter my breathing, just my mental concentration.
    
    When I do this, I feel as though I am extracting some kind of energy
    from the air as it enters my body.  This energy seems to directly
    "fuel" the light/love energy in my chakras.
    
    This is all very subjective, but very real to me.
    
    
    Carter 

    most of us have been burned too often...  we don't speak freely of
    our experiences anymore..  

    Yes sometimes they are asked questions that prove to be difficult to
    answer.

    Jamie.

wal,

Others do still relate experiences in here.  I have, but don't have any new ones
(that I am ready to relate ;-).  Also, many of us may fear impact to career if
we are too outspoken.  After all, someone may think we are dangerously 
deluded :-)  I know, and accept those risks, because my life is not just my 
career, nor can I let the pursuit of my career prevent me from growing outside
of the scope of my career.  It seems odd, however, that one of the few places
I can go to find trustworthy, useful, discussion of issues like the one in the
base note here "at work".  Then again, it may not be odd - DEC does promote 
mental and emotional growth of the employees as best they know how.

Beth

    re: .76 (Beth)
    
         Okay, Beth, you don't have to tell us about your whipped
    cream and liquid chocolate escapades if you don't want to, we'll
    try to understand...but, maybe, just maybe, it'd be a *promotion*
    for you if your bosses found out!  ;-)
    
         One of the freeing aspects of "insanity" is that people can
    experience total freedom--and do anything they please.  The 
    downside is that this is the child's point of view...for the
    adult will only take that freedom WITH responsibility.
      
         Having differing views is a healthier approach towards finding
    a balance than it would be if the single point of mediocrity were
    sought, instead.  Those who laugh, at other's expense, are not
    laughing as adults...probably more as adolescents.  To be certain,
    there are many, many grown-ups, who have never given up their
    (negative) adolescence--no matter how far up the food chain they've
    climbed (witness George Bush, e.g.)  Bosses are no less adolescent,
    necessarily...too bad, huh?!
    
    Frederick
    

    To be considered sane you must adhere strictly to the shared reality of
    the majority. If you can do that you can be almost completely out of
    control and still be considered sane. Shouldn't the real measure of
    sanity be how much self control you possess?
    
    johN
    

    The effective definition of insanity is determined by how
    much one disrupts the social order (with the social unit
    varying in size from the family on up).
    
    Read _The Manufacture of Madness_ by Thomas Szasz for more.
    
    /bruce

    re  -.1
    
    	When in love, bereaved, or in hockey game there are reasonable
    emotional responses, but that doesn't rule out self control. The
    consequences of "falling" in love is so hazardous because it is
    involuntary on the part of most people. What could be more insane than
    falling in love with some one who will only cause you decades of
    misery? Why not recognize those reverberations pounding around your
    biological machine for what they are? Just because "insane" people
    around you have taught you to label them as love why accept that?
    Genuine love is a vibration emanating from the heart under the volition
    of the will. It doesn't need verbal labels or endless explanations.
    	As for cultural differences, shared realities need not be mutually
    inclusive equally insane. Some cultures are less sane than others.
    Usually they take great pride in those features that they've got it
    together on.
    	I come from the only sane culture on the planet and there are only
    a few million of us. In fact most of those few million are still 
    insane! ;^) ;^)
    
    I assume you met Muslim when you said Mohammedian(sic) Mohammedan was
    an insult coined by Christians sort of like calling Catholics Papists.
    
                                johN

    
    Re.70
    
    Carter,
    
    Yes, that is what is going on (extracting energy from the air).
    
    There is a book entitled "Pranic Healing" which you might be interested
    in reading.  I believe the author's last name is Siu, however I'm not
    positive.  
    
    Back when the last hurricane went through New England a few months ago,
    I felt *exhausted* both before and during the storm...so much so that
    upon making it home from work before it came through, I layed down on
    the floor to watch some TV (too weak to do much else), and fell asleep
    until after the hurricane had passed through.  A few weeks later I was
    thumbing through the book mentioned above in a bookstore and came upon
    a paragraph which said that during storms, the levels of prana are
    extremely low.  The book went on to describe how to consciously intake
    more prana, and some of the techniques were breathing exercises.  The
    mental concentration you mentioned may also be on the list.
    
    On another occasion, I was with some friends doing energy balancing and
    since they were sensitive to such things, I consciously did some intense 
    deep circular breathing (in through the nose forcefully, and passively
    exhale through the mouth continually) to step up the pranic levels and 
    increase my energy field.  One friend - a reader of this conference - 
    was able to detect it from 8 feet away.  (All subjective, of course.)
    
    Somewhere I read that prana in the body feeds off oxygen.  Having done 
    some rebirth/Vivation breathing which steps up the intake of oxygen - 
    forceful inhaling through the mouth while passively exhaling - it makes 
    sense to me as the sensations begin to become apparent after a few 
    minutes of doing this.  It also puts you into a state of super-
    consciousness, or hyperawareness (all relative states depending upon
    what your normal waking state is), if you're not used to breathing this
    way.
     
    The next time you use mental concentration, try to see if the prana
    goes to any part in your body, then breathe into that section - chances
    are that it is an area that needs some attention/healing.  By
    continuing the breath, it will help to heal/release/integrate that area.
    
    Cindy  
                                                                 

    re: .83 Cindy
    
    Thanks for the pointer.  Now I am wondering if I am somehow
    transferring prana to my SO, since she gasps air when I concentrate on
    her chakras.
    
    re: -Wal
    
    Thanks for your experiences!  I imagine sun-like radiant light/love
    entering my heart chakra (with a sky-blue background, sometimes) when I
    inhale air/prana during meditation.
    
    Tantra, Yes! (but for me, the right-handed path, not the left!)
    
    Carter

    Re: .83
    
    It's odd you say that prana is low during storms.  Usually, I feel
    invigorated by storms, the more violent, the more invigorated.  Am I
    tapping into some other energy source than prana?
    
    Beth

    I find most storms invigorating, but there are certain storms that make 
    me tense and drain me while they approach.  I seem to remember reading 
    something long ago from folklore about that kind that drain you, but its 
    so vague in my mind I can't quite remember.  They had a name...
    
    Mary

From: "Pranic Healing", by Choa Kok Sui

Chapter 3 - Cleansing and Energizing

Three Things To Avoid In Pranic Healing

1. Do not energize the eyes directly.  They are very delicate and are
   easily overdosed with prana if directly energized.  This may damage
   the eyes in the long run.  They eyes can be energized through the back
   of the head or through the area between the eyebrows.  There is a
   chakra (energy center) in each of these locations.  It is safer to
   energize through the ajna chakra (the area between the eyebrows).  If
   the eyes are already sufficiently energized, the excess prana would
   just flow to other parts of the body. 

2. Do not directly and intensely energize the heart for a long time. 
   It is quite sensitive and delicate.  Too much prana and too much
   intense energizing may cause severe pranic congestion of the heart.
   The heart can be energized through the back of the spine near the
   heart area.  In energizing the heart through the back, prana flows not
   only to the heart but to other parts of the body.  This reduces the
   possibility of pranic congestion on the heart.  If the heart is
   energized through the front, the flow of prana is localized around the
   heart area, thereby increasing the possibility of pranic congestion. 

3. Do not apply too intense and too much prana on infants, very young 
   children (2 years old and younger), or very weak and old patients.  
   With infants and very young children, their chakras are still small 
   and not quite strong.  Very weak and very old patients have chakras 
   that are also weak.  Too much prana or too intense energizing has a 
   choking effect on their chakras.  This is similar to the choking 
   reaction of a very thirsty person who drinks too much water in too 
   short a time.  The ability of very weak and old patients is to 
   assimilate prana is very slow.  These types of patients should be 
   energized gently and gradually.  They should be allowed to rest and 
   assimilate prana for about fifteen to twenty minutes before you 
   attempt to energize them again.

   If the solar plexus chakra is suddenly overenergized, resulting in the 
   choking effect on the chakra, the patient may suddenly become pale 
   and may have difficulty breathing.  SHOULD THIS HAPPEN, APPLY 
   LOCALIZED SWEEPING IMMEDIATELY ON THE SOLAR PLEXUS AREA.  The patient 
   will be relieved immediately.  This type of case is rare and is 
   presented only to show the reader what to do in case something like 
   this happens.

    re  .83  and .87
    
    Some types of storms are accompanied by an excess of positive ions.
    These are generally harmful. 
    There is some kind of interaction bvetween prana and electricity if the
    research of Reich and others is to be believed, but they aren't
    directly equivalent.
    
    johN