Conference hydra::dejavu

    re: .0
    
         These kinds of questions are common from many people.  From
    my perspective, I'd say you are receiving messages from either
    the sub-conscious mind or the un-conscious mind.  While there are
    universal sorts of symbologies, there are also your own, unique
    set.  
         The one question I would ask you is, what is life if not simply
    a "figment of our imagination?"  This physical reality to me is nothing
    more than a "very dense dream."  (Supported in part by the
    understanding that there is no such thing as a solid in our reality---
    all matter consists of energy [trapped light] with nothing but space
    in between the ordered/disordered movement of non-solid energy.)
    So, again, what is this reality?  Imagination is a very strong and
    likely answer.  So what are dreams/altered states?  The same thing,
    only less dense, and usually without time/space constraints.  What
    are you then tapping into?  Those parts of yourself that exist between/
    beyond this conscious and dense reality. 
    
    Frederick
    

    I would recommend that you go with your intuition.  My own experience
    has been that when I let my logical mind override my intuition, I get
    into trouble.  You know that feeling when you have studied too much? 
    It's the same when you just plain think/logicalize (?) too much. --You
    get that foggy-jumbled-brain feeling.
    
    Michelle

    re: .2 (Michele)
    
         And I would suggest that she learns which part of herself she
    can trust the most.  That isn't necessarily her intuition.  
         There are four components within the self:  intellectual, 
    intuitive, emotional and physical.  Which one is "more important?"
    The answer:  whichever one is.  For each person there are always
    clues within each part, some of which are more reliable indicators
    for that person than some of the other clues.  For example,
    do you decide to have a committed relationship with someone?  The 
    body screams "yes"  (  ;-) ,)  the emotions yell "Do it!,"  the
    intellect says "Oh, we have so much in common,"  but the intuition
    says "I have a strange feeling here."  Do you throw out three of the
    criteria of positivism for that one of negativism?  Maybe and maybe
    not.  Only "you" can determine which of the four or which combination
    of four are reliable, trustworthy indicators.  And, these are 
    things which presumably get developed over time.  If you practice,
    you can learn what's what.  This is NOT to say that whatever it is
    that works for you will work for someone else.
    
    Frederick
    

                                  
    Re.0
    
    I do know what you mean, and it is difficult to write about.
    
    Receiving messages in symbols from your subconscious or unconscious 
    is a very powerful way of receiving messages.  They're more easily
    understood than words.
    
    There are common, universal symbols that exist.  Though I've not read
    this book myself, many of my friends have...it's called "Man and His
    Symbols", by Carl Jung.  It may provide you with some of the answers
    you are seeking.  There are also some references to symbols in "A
    Cosmic Book", by I.Bentov (I highly recommend this book for the
    rest of the contents as well.)
    
    Cindy

    
    Re: .0
    
    Like Cindy, I too know what you mean.  At the time you recieved the
    "message", you understood it, but you can't quite remember what it was. 
    Some part of you DOES remember and understand, and the knowledge will
    eventually filter out into conscious knowledge.
    
    I don't fully concur, though, that it is a message from some part of
    your self.  When I have this sensation, it is sometimes like some part
    of me was communicating with others, and the conscious me will be clued
    in to it when I am ready.
    
    Beth

I may have not have stated this clearly... as far as this message coming 
from myself.

I felt it came from somewhere else (not sure where).  It was like something/
someone was showing me or giving me the answer to my question.  Unfortunately
it was the first time that had ever happen to me and not being adept at all this
I feel I may have not quite got the whole thing as maybe I could have.
Then I wonder if what I saw was in reply to my burning question or giving
me something about the situation that was unrelated to my question.  

Cindy in .4 stated these things may come from the concious or
subconcious where Beth said in .5 that it was coming from more of an outside
source.  Is that kind of the same thing or something different.

I know of a medium that has symbols appear to her throughout her reading with
me.  The kind of thing I saw sounded very similiar to what she experiences.  She
is very quick to tell me what these things mean.  

I wonder if you have to be more developed in the psychic arena to be able to 
really understand what the symbols really are telling you.  Even though at the 
time I saw it I seemed to understand it - I stress seemed, now I wonder if I  
interpreted what I wanted to or hoped in mean't.  But my first and immediate 
sense of it still stays with me. 

I have always been told to trust my intuition by so many people - that it
is extremely accurate and very keen.  Here I go again poking holes it.
  

    
    re: .0
    
    You seem to imply that because these things could have been
    your "imagination" that somehow it makes them somewhat less 
    real.
    
    Your experience is always real (to you anyway).  That it means
    anything particularly ominous or meaningful may or may not be
    the case.  That is entirely for you to decide.  You can't 
    *really* rationalize away the fact that you thought or felt
    certain things.
    
    The question is what to do about it.  That's entirely up to you.
    And I think it's also the subject for much debate.  You could blow
    it off, and say that if it's important for you to know you'll 
    get a more direct, comprehendable message (what form would be
    more direct and understandable for *you*?).  
    
    Or you can analyze it until you dig up an "answer". ("all things
    are metaphors") 
    
    Pick a method of dealing with it and see what you learn from the
    resulting experience.  
    
    And have fun with it.
    
    
    guy

    Re: .3 (Frederick)
    
    My main objection to relying too heavily on the intellect is that it is
    influenced/molded/impressed in large part by society/environment.  So,
    the logical mind (intellect) may think "what I'm feeling is crazy" and
    discount those feelings, when, in fact, the rejection of the "crazy"
    thought is really a result of environmental conditioning or societal
    lack of tolerance for such ideas.  (Am I making myself clear, or is
    this confusing?  I know what I mean to say, but I don't know what I say
    means.)
    
    Best,
    MicheLLe

    Ooooops.  Frederick, it looks like we're off on a tangent since
    ::USHER feels that the symbols were not from self at all.
    
    You are right, though, that what works best for one is not necessarily
    best for all.
    
    Best,  :^)
    Michelle

                                                                            
    Re.6
    
    There are many, many, models of 'what is' (Reality).  And many more 
    names to go with them.  "Collective unconscious", "subconscious", 
    "Higher Self", "Soul", "Superconsciousness", "Akashic Records", and 
    so on.  From this perspective then, whether it comes from within you 
    or outside of you, depends upon which model of Reality you subscribe to.
    
    Here's what happens to me:  when I 'submit a question' to the universe,
    it kind of spins itself off into batch processing and eventually I'll
    get the answer.  The answer may be immediate, in the form of a 'symbol
    popping into my head' (and the corresponding 'understanding' of what it
    means...as much as I'm able to comprehend), or I may just go to a 
    bookshelf, open a book, and the answer is staring at me from the page.
    Or a friend may call up and the topic will come up in conversation. 
    With some of my more aware friends, they tend to call up and ask why
    I'm 'calling' them.  (;^)  
    
    The problem is that this is how my life has always been, so I'm at a
    loss as to how to relate it to your situation.  I feel that Carl Jung
    has done a lot of work in this area of the 'collective unconscious', so
    anything you read by him, especially "Man and His Symbols" will
    probably be useful to you.  My personal favorite is "The Undiscovered
    Self", one of his easy books, and one I'd highly recommend to read
    first (the others can be very difficult reading at times).
    
    Cindy

    
    re: .10 (Cindy)
    
    You thought that "The Undiscovered Self" was one of his easier 
    books?  Well...I suppose it is a *little* easier reading than
    some (not as many footnotes to distract the reader).....
    
    "Man and His Symbols" is quite a bit easier (imo).
    
    guy

    re:  Michele
    
         Okay.
    
    re: .11 (Montalvo)
    
         "Don't trust the mind"
         Really?  Now *there's* a belief to spend life with!  I suscribe
    to the concept of "mind" being a synergy of brain and heart (mental
    and emotional processes.)  I'd be done for if I couldn't trust that.
    Trust is something that requires practice to develop.  Totally trusting
    (from the initiate's level) is the same as no trust at all.  Most
    of us learn to discern when and where and how and why to trust...and
    the self-realized, enlightened eventually reach the state of total
    trust and total responsibility.  But we're not there.  However, to
    say "don't trust the mind," is incredibly foolish.  With that belief
    firmly entrenched, trust will never happen.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
     Frederick-
    
       Taking your idea one step further, sometimes people use different
    parts for different situations. For instance, I am very intuitive when
    it comes to people. After meeting someone for the first time (many
    times after only seeing them) I usually know what kind of person they
    are, whether they are trustworthy or arrogant or highly intelligent
    or a con artist or whatever. Even when people swear someone's a "nice
    guy," if I have a bad feeling about someone I usually end up right.
       BUT i have almost NO intuition when it comes to events. I've learned
    to not follow these because they never pan out. For instance, a few
    weeks ago, I was lying in bed waiting to go to sleep when I got a 
    horrible feeling something had happened to my father. I *KNEW*
    something had happened to him. I had to choke down the inclination to
    call him (it was two AM). The next morning I called him, he was fine.
    
      RE: .0   Has your intuition, or this other source, helped you or been
    right about similar situations before?? Or is the first time it's
    happened??
    
    
     -Aly
    

    re: .14 (Aly)
    
         Yes, correctomundo.
         For each of us it *is* different; we all have our own
    individual and unique criteria for learning when to trust.
    It is important, however, to weigh all four components...it
    is important to consider intuition, for example.  It is not
    that one "wins" over another part, but that they be balanced
    and eventually one can learn to discriminate on the basis
    of their own unique balance.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re.0
    
    For a better explanation of 'out there' vs. 'inside you', and the
    difference between them, I was just reading through "Unconditional 
    Life" by Deepak Chopra M.D. last night, and he gives some of the 
    best descriptions of all.  Highly recommended book. 
    
    Cindy

    re: .17
    
         "...just woken up screaming from a nightmare."
         I'd yell, "Haven't you had enough sex YET?!  I can't take
    this anymore!"   :-)  :-)  [Believe me, not being able to take it
    would be a total nightmare.]
    
         It's great to hang out with feelings, Wal.  They are certainly
    important and at the core.  But the feelings produce thoughts,
    and those thoughts must be acknowledged, too.  
         I woke up in L.A. the Sunday before last, at 5 a.m.  It just
    so happened that a 7.4 earthquake was happening just about 100 miles
    away and the effects were clearly noticable.  Now, since I live just
    ten miles from the epicenter of the Loma Prieta earthquake that was
    a 7.1 two years ago (and experienced that one with some trepidation,
    to be modest) I was immediately able to ascertain that there was
    imminent and potential danger.  I could have, as you say, hung out
    with fear (and some anger.)  But I didn't.  As I felt the fear
    (and it was instantaneous) I also immediately called out to Uriel
    (the archangel archetype) to desist.  I also called to Lazaris for
    some support (and I knew that Lazaris' channel, Jach, was in his 
    room on the 16th floor of the hotel I was in--I was on the sixth
    floor.)  In other words, I didn't just *feel,* I also "thought."
    I combined the two to produce yet other feelings and other thoughts
    (like where's the best place to protect myself.)  I especially
    didn't forget my metaphysics and my spirituality.
        
         First things first, Wal.  Reactions are valid because they
    preserve a certain level of protection for basic needs (the four
    "f's."  ;-)  )  But you don't stay in reactive mode (unless you're
    the followers of H. Ron Hubbard.   ;-)  )  Your response was valid;
    but only until you can engage other parts of the self.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .19 
    
         Ah, well, in that case...!  Yes, sometimes we tend to dilute
    or discount or fritter away the other experiences by applying 
    "logic," but not necessarily thinking.  Thinking does NOT equal
    logic.  Even rationale can become counter-productive sometimes,
    for it can take "magic" away from the experience.  Magical moments
    or experiences should not be disassembled by applying rules of
    science, I agree.  Now that I understand what you are saying (if
    I do) then I agree.  Playing around in the unconscious world
    (either by directly delving into it or by roaming the periphery
    of the unconscious-->the underworld) does not necessarily have
    rules of science, i.e., logic, attached.  But that doesn't mean
    that as human beings we can't *think* about those things.  Maybe
    not analyze/dissect, but think about.  You know, most people,
    including myself, don't really know what thinking is.  But that's
    perhaps a different subject.
    
    Frederick