Conference hydra::dejavu

    I did when I was a child.
    
    Am I richer or poorer now ?
    
    Or just less confused ?
    
    karl

    Yes, Nasser, I know what you mean.  I believe it's because we are
    multi-dimensional beings, experiencing many existences simultaneously,
    and some of us are presently moving from a three-dimensional world to a
    fourth-dimensional one.

    sometimes i think this is all dream, i mean every thing could be just
    a dream, and i actually live in a completely different world, different
    than all this, may be i really have 4 ears and one eye and no nose,
    i mean anything is possible, right? 

    the thing is, how do i know that what iam living through now, every
    thing, from work, to eating, to traffic jams to watching movies, and
    all the people i meet, that all this is nothing but a dream, and the
    real my is sleep and one day i'll wake up and find i really live
    in different planet and different solar system and we have completely
    different life. if i bench myself, and feel it, it could still be in
    a dream too, so this will not work.

Nassar,

This is actually good thinking. There are many Shamans and others who say 
that there are multiple, parrallel worlds and that they can slip in between 
them. They talk about this being a dream, and being stronger than others 
because a lot of us are just dreaming the same dream. Fred Wolf talks about 
this stuff in his latest big. I think it's called the Eagle's Journey, or 
something like that. And for all those skeptical types, he is a 
well-respected Physicist and Professor. He talks a lot about how we dream 
this world into existence.

Sam

    I definitely dream this existence...  I know it's a dream... and when I
    sleep I dream totally different worlds ... places and people I've never
    seen before... dreams are malable.. I've found.. lucid dreaming I guess
    they call it now.

    ...something this topic brought to mind
    
    "I've been realizing that I bought this ticket
     But I'm watchin' only half of the show
     There is scenery and lights
     And a cast of thousands
     Who all know what I know
     
     It's in every one of us
     To be wise
     Find your heart 
     Open up both your eyes
     We can all know everything
     Without ever knowing why
     It's in every one of us
     By and by."
    
    

    Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) reportedly said,
    
    "The people are sleeping.  They have to die before they wake."
    
    This has been the cause of many interpretations and philosophical
    controversies in the Islamic world, as you might imagine.  The Sufis
    say this means that when we die to ourselves, kill our ordinary ego, 
    we will awaken to our true nature.  Which means of course that ordinary
    consciousness IS illusion and could be termed a dream.  It's a dream
    that many of us agree upon, however.
    
    Meher Baba said, "I have not come to teach but to awaken."  Indeed his
    followers term him 'the Awakener'.
    
    The Ayes have it.
    
    karl

    re: <<< Note 1749.6 by VS2K::GENTILE "New World Order Is OLD World Lie" >>>
    <This is actually good thinking. There are many Shamans and others who say 
<that there are multiple, parrallel worlds and that they can slip in between 
<them.
    
    I am not a shaman but, I do practice shamanism. When I journey I enter an
    altered state of consciousness. I journey to what's commonly called 
    non-ordinary reality. It too has been referred to as a parallel 
    universe. During a journey I can travel between the lower world, middle
    world, or upper world.
    
    Mitakuye Oyasin
    
    Michael

    
    
     A saying I once heard goes something like this.
    
    "Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly,
     Today I don't know if I'm a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or
     a butterfly who dreams he's a man..."
    
    
    Bob

    We used to sit up all night talking about this stuff when I was in
    boarding school. Sometimes we'd even do it without the drugs ;^) I've
    got better things to do now.
    
    Laurie.

    We used to sit up all night talking about this stuff when I was in
    boarding school. Sometimes we'd even do it without the drugs ;^) I've
    got better things to do now.

Laurie,

I know that's what it sounds like and I thought this way just a year or so 
ago. That's the typical reaction to something like this and I have 
encountered it many times in discussions of native spirituality - that it's 
all drug induced. This is an attitude of fear. It's NOT drugs, it's using 
abilities that you and I both have. Try to have an open mind and it will 
happen. I know because I have gone from a complete skeptic to someone who 
has experienced some things.

Sam

    I wasn't implying that "it's all drug induced". I was trying to
    illustrate that it's the sort of thing adolescents do, but adults
    simply have better things to do than stare into space and wonder what's
    there.
    
    Laurie.

  Re .15 (Laurie)

> ... it's the sort of thing adolescents do, but adults simply have better
> things to do than stare into space and wonder what's there.

  Can't agree with you on that one - it all hinges on the [subjective] word
  "better" ...

  From the point of view of my continued job security and associated family
  finances, it is 'better' for me to spend a few hours on a customer's
  progamming query, regardless of how trivial, nonsensical or downright
  irrelevent it happens to be but from a satisfaction point of view, there
  are a host of most attractive [='better'] ways to spend the same time ...
  one of which [for me] being to idly muse about possible explanations of
  the phenomena collectively known as "reality". 

  Staring into space and letting the brain's null job wizz off down obscure
  avenues is probably more beneficial than doing a repetitive and boring job
  as the former exercises the reasoning capabilities of the mind (argueing
  pro & con a particular thread) whilst the latter only promotes stagnation.

  To twist your words somewhat, the same phrase could be used to dissuade
  people from reading any form of fiction, watching any non-factual program
  on television or even taking part in any sport without remuneration.  None
  of these is "productive" or directly beneficial but all are indirectly so
  when taken in moderation.  Yes, too much 'dreaming' may not be a good thing
  but neither is becoming a couch potato or sporting cripple.  Neither extreme
  is healthy and only the individual can really say what mixture happens to
  be "better" for them.

  Frank

    Laurie - 
    
    Your comment brought to mind something that my daughter taught me when
    she was a baby.  I used to watch her take in the world and explore it
    with utter absorbtion and joy.  Most of the time I was too busy doing
    life to take the time to really see the magic and the wonder the world 
    has to offer.  Yes, there are things we, as adults, have to do in order
    to assure our individual survival and that of our loved ones.  Still,
    we are human_beings_ not human_doings_.  Without the joy of exploration
    and wonder, would life really be worth living?  Not to me.
    
    Count me as a human_being_...or maybe a human_becoming_.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    RE: .16
    
    Frank, I can't argue with that.
    
    RE: .17
    
    Agreed too, but there has to be a balance. I have a home to pay for,
    bills to pay, family to provide for, etc. etc. There's not a lot of
    time left to stare into space. You're right, of course, and life's too
    short. Which brings us back to Frank's comments on balance.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie,
    
    I can't help but wonder why... since you have "better things to do now"
    .. why don't you just go and do them?   I mean... why do you frequent
    a notesfile that is dedicated as space for those who are interested in
    discussing those things?  
    
    I mean no offense but I can't help but wonder. 
    
    Why are you here, Laurie?

    Mary, it's like this. Either one or more of us are dreaming and Laurie
    and Jaimie aren't really here or they are dreaming (one or the other or
    both) and none of us are here. :-)
    
    Actually, I'm glad for the presence of both Laurie and Jaimie and any
    other folks who can't buy any metaphysical stuff. Gives me perspective
    on some of the stuff put in here.
    
    
    PJ

    Me too... I just don't understand why they are here..
    
    I mean... if conversations about automobiles bored me and I weren't
    interested in them... well, I wouldn't open an automobile notesfile
    every day and read it and then ask the people there why they bothered
    talking about boring stuff like cars.
    
    .... I mean... I just don't understand it... but .. so what.. I don't
    understand a lot of things... 

    Mary (.21),
    
    8^)  8^)
    
    Ro
    

    A truly wise man admits only to knowing nothing.:^)
   

RE:   <<< Note 1749.19 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>
    
�    Why are you here, Laurie?
    
    Hmmm. Tough one that. Let me just stare at the stars for a while on
    that one.
    
    Laurie.

    Well you go and think about it and we'll think about it too and maybe
    between all of us together, we'll be able to figure out why an
    obviously intelligent lady spends so much of her time doing something
    she claims is childish and a waste of time... it's a paradox, huh?
    
    ... but of course... things are seldom as they appear to be...

    I don't recall calling anything childish, or indeed, a waste of time.
    
    Laurie.

>================================================================================
>Note 1749.15        what if all this is nothing but a dream ?           15 of 26
>PLAYER::BROWNL "It wasn't me"                         6 lines  14-OCT-1992 05:59
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I wasn't implying that "it's all drug induced". I was trying to
>    illustrate that it's the sort of thing adolescents do, but adults
>    simply have better things to do than stare into space and wonder what's
>    there.
>    
>    Laurie.
    
     Sounds like you're calling it childish and a waste of time to me,
    Laurie.
    
    
>Note 1749.13        what if all this is nothing but a dream ?           13 of 26
>PLAYER::BROWNL "It wasn't me"                         5 lines  12-OCT-1992 12:42
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    We used to sit up all night talking about this stuff when I was in
>    boarding school. Sometimes we'd even do it without the drugs ;^) I've
>    got better things to do now.
>    
>    Laurie.
    
    "When I was in boarding school" implies childhood, does it not?
    
    "I've got better things to do now" implies a waste of time, don't you 
    think?

    re .21 Mary  - Touche (where's that accent aigu, anyway?)
    re .25 Mary  - I heartily agree that "things are seldom as they
    		   appear to be."

    Can you say being caught in a contradiction?
    
    

  The same question ["Why is ABC still reading the XYZ conference?"] could be
  asked of any one of us if/when we adhere to our own views despite repeated
  reasoned argument to the contrary. 
 
  As PJ said (.20?), at least Laurie & Jamie provide a sense of perspective
  from time to time (and [usually] do so politely).  They are both reasonable
  when not being mocked - like most other participants really - so why worry
  about their particular personal viewpoint being different from your own ?
  At least they aren't just here to poke fun without contributing anything
  useful [as other visitors have been in the past].

  There again, maybe the majority of us are simply recurrent dream themes :-)

  Frank

  (PS : I wouldn't call Laurie a *lady* ... but never having met, maybe I'm
   being a bit unfair ... :-)

    A Wot 'E said to .30
    
    I can't imagine a serious discussion on the paranormal taking place
    without a great deal of doubt and sceptisism. It's healthy.
    
    Dougie
    

>  There again, maybe the majority of us are simply recurrent dream themes :-)
    
    Those who wander the astral realms are said to sometimes encounter
    'astral corpses,' which are the shells of entities that have gone
    on, leaving a remnant that appears as a personality, but lacking the ability 
    to initiate new things.   Is there perhaps an interface for astral corpses
    to enter Notes ?   Could we tell the difference, or would we fall
    victim to the 'Eliza' effect ?  Interesting to ponder, for those with the 
    spare time to stare into space for a few moments ...  ;-)
    
    								todd

       >>  what if all this is nothing but a dream ?   
        
        
        Well after  reading  this  note  for a while if the above is true
        then you are all meat when I wake up from this nightmare.
        
        Steve 8^)

    Ok, so I'm inconsistent!
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. I'm often called a lady.

    Actually Laurie... you're very, very consistent.  
    
    I went back and read all of the notes you've ever entered the other day
    and there are very predictable consistent patterns there.
    

    You see?
    
    It's that one, single unexplained inconsistency in an otherwise very 
    predictable, consistent, down-to-earth person .... the kind of person
    that has a reason for everything he does... the kind of person who 
    acts deliberately and with purpose... the kind of person who would
    never spend so much time (the person obviously considers time to be 
    a valuable commodity) doing something that he considers pointless and 
    silly... and yet he does...  
    
    .... that's what get's people to wondering....  
    
    Now one might speculate that the paradox can be explained if the person 
    is still being consistent within his own established pattern... if he 
    in fact *is* still acting with purpose and deliberation but perhaps 
    his purpose is one which he prefers be kept hidden for some reason...
    ... secrets... wheels within wheels.... 

    RE: .36
    
    Really Mary? I'd be most interested in hearing what this pattern is,
    and what it reveals (to you).
    
    Laurie.

I can tell you what the pattern is: you and Jamie (and others, though
you two have been the most recognizable) have adopted the position that
as long as the existence of a spirit dimension can't be (or hasn't
been) demonstrated (within the physical dimensions in which we live),
that it therefore doesn't exist. All of your comments are based on this
position.

This is one of several possible positions a rational person can take,
but not the only rational one.

However, I stand with you in being on the watch for deception and
self-deception, which is common to all humans, regardless of their
chosen position on this matter. You may feel that this (vigilance
against deception) is the main basis for your comments, but I wouldn't
be convinced.

    .39 kinda defines my position re the UFOS conference.  Of course, I've
    had the grace to butt out..
    
    karl

PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    Really Mary? I'd be most interested in hearing what this pattern is,
>    and what it reveals (to you).
    
     It is the mark of a very down to earth, logical, deliberate, sensible
     person, Laurie.
    
     It tells me that everything you do is done deliberately and with
     purpose and 'intent'.
    
     You have the mind of a scientist.
    
    Why you spend so much of your time in a conference dedicated to things
    that you consider to be childish and a waste of time ... I could only
    speculate intuitively about... and knowing that you don't value
    intuitive speculation... I'll refrain.

RE:   <<< Note 1749.41 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

�     It is the mark of a very down to earth, logical, deliberate, sensible
�     person, Laurie.
    
    Sounds fair enough to me. I'm struggling to see the problem with
    that...
    
    Why do I stay here? Humans are fascinating.
    
    Laurie.

    No one said it was a problem... 
    
    Of course, a *good* scientist doesn't try to force his own personal 
    perspective upon his subject less he distort his study.
    
    Unless that is his 'intent'... not to study but to influence... to
    alter ... to change.... like the crazy behavior modificationists.
    
    Not that it matters... no one is opening up much around here anymore.
    The atmosphere is too confining... 

    ... and it may not be so much that people in here are 'facinating' as
    it is that they are vulnerable and easy to bully... some people get off
    on that.. they only feel important when they're putting someone else 
    down.
    
    You don't strike me as that sort of person though, Laurie... the kind
    of person who has to stand on someone else in order to feel tall... so
    that brings me back to that scientific mind of yours.

    You're quite correct Mary, I'm not that type of person.
    
    Laurie.

    ... and yet you definitely discourage certain expressions or opinions
    or modes of thought... and you do it consistently  What is your
    'intent' in doing that, Laurie?  
    
    You obviously don't want people thinking about or talking about the
    nature of reality.  And yet you don't just brush them off... you 
    actively note in a file dedicate to that subject... and you actively
    discourage people... that seems to be your role.  Why?  It doesn't make
    sense.
    
    If you're not the kind of person who takes pleasure in putting people
    down, then you're acting with purpose and 'intent'.  Do you mind my
    asking what your purpose and 'intent' is?

    Let me guess:
    
    Laurie (and Jamie) would like to believe that there are psychic
    phenomena out there.  However, being knowledgable people, they are
    aware that such phenomena are exceedingly rare, if they exist at
    all.
    
    In this conference, they find that great piles of something-or-other
    have been figuratively dropped on the floor.  They ask questions to
    find out if these piles have gone through ANY sort of analysis to
    determine if they *could*, really, belong to that rare category, or
    if they have just been dragged in without any consideration for
    whether or not someone could have been mistaken.
    
    Given the acknowledged rarity of psychic phenomena, .AND. given the
    cavalier attitude towards things like sequencing, cross-checking,
    testing, examining alternate hypotheses, etc., that I have seen all
    too often in this conference (among a few zillion other places), I
    believe that they are simply trying to ascertain, on a one-by-one
    basis, if a given claim is worth paying attention to.  If each person
    entering a phenomenon were more rigorous about examining it, and
    reporting the results, then Laurie et al. would not have to do the
    work themselves -- and a lot fewer entries would be posted.
    
    						Ann B.

REGENT::BROOMHEAD 
    
>    In this conference, they find that great piles of something-or-other
>    have been figuratively dropped on the floor.  They ask questions to
>    find out if these piles have gone through ANY sort of analysis to
>    determine if they *could*, really, belong to that rare category, or
>    if they have just been dragged in without any consideration for
>    whether or not someone could have been mistaken.
    
     Well... seems to me that implications that discussions about the nature of
    reality is childish and a waste of time doesn't really fit into the
    category of asking questions to see if someone made a mistake... but
    what do I know.
    
>    Given the acknowledged rarity of psychic phenomena, .AND. given the
>    cavalier attitude towards things like sequencing, cross-checking,
>    testing, examining alternate hypotheses, etc., that I have seen all
>    too often in this conference (among a few zillion other places), I
>    believe that they are simply trying to ascertain, on a one-by-one
>    basis, if a given claim is worth paying attention to.  If each person
>    entering a phenomenon were more rigorous about examining it, and
>    reporting the results, then Laurie et al. would not have to do the
>    work themselves -- and a lot fewer entries would be posted.
    
     Is this a science conference now?  
    
     I thought it was a place where people who were interested in this
     stuff could go to talk to each other.    
    
     I didn't realize that the space was for people like Laurie et al to
     cross-examine people about their experiences and beliefs in order to
     ascertain that they are scientifically accurate or politically correct.
    
     In that case.... I understand why Laurie thinks it is childish and
     a waste of time for us to talk in here... and he's right.

    re: .48 (Ann Broomhead)
    
    I don't know about L and J, but this sums up pretty well my approach to
    this conference.
    
    re: .49
                         
    You use subjective terms which don't help the situation. I wouldn't say
    that L & J 'cross-examine' people on their claims. By the very act of
    posting a viewpoint or experience in a conference, one is, I believe,
    inviting discussion on the subject. 
    
    There are lots of gullible, impressionable and weakened people in the
    world, and lots of unscrupulous people who make money out of these
    people by manipulating them when they are at their weakest. Showing
    that some phenomena don't actually exist can only be for the good of
    all. There is nothing sinister, hostile or vindictive in asking people
    who note here to elaborate on their experiences.
    
    Dougie

   <<< Note 1749.49 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

�>    basis, if a given claim is worth paying attention to.  If each person
�>    entering a phenomenon were more rigorous about examining it, and
�>    reporting the results, then Laurie et al. would not have to do the
�>    work themselves -- and a lot fewer entries would be posted.
�    
�     Is this a science conference now?  
� 
�     I thought it was a place where people who were interested in this
�     stuff could go to talk to each other.    
    
When Topher moderated me recently, he pointed me to the Conference Notice.
Typing SHOW CONFERENCE invites the reader to read the notes in topic 1
before noting.

Note 1.0 states specifically that input is invited from skeptics as well as
believers. (Is the author in 1.0 any relation btw?).

If all the skeptics were to leave DEJAVU, I think it would become a very
dull conference.

Dougie

    Ann (particularly) and Dougie have said very well, what I would have
    said.
    
    Mary, you are looking for something that isn't there, and you are using
    quite fantastic jumps in logic to try and prove your case. You are also
    crediting me with beliefs I haven't got, motives I don't share, and
    statements I didn't make. I am indeed highly sceptical (note correct
    spelling), and I do indeed stare in wonder at the blind acceptance some
    people show to statements simply because they are "in a book". You see,
    Dougie is indeed correct, there are many weak and impressionable people
    about, and even more who will ruthlessly prey on them. Just because I
    question rather than believe, doesn't make me malicious.
    
    One particularly prolific noter has recently entered several long
    notes on subjects I know little about. These notes are full of
    statements presented as fact, with little or no backup, and, as far as
    I can see, no basis in reality. These are the kind of things I question
    except in this case, the volume is simply too great for me to spare the
    time to analyse them properly. Several other noters however, have
    clearly taken them in and thanked said noter for entering them. A clear
    case of blind acceptance.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie,
    
    Simply questioning rather than believing is not malicious.  However,
    some of the comments that you and others have made in this conference
    clearly have not been simple questioning, but rather obvious putdowns
    and insults.
    
    I've only skimmed through the last few notes, so I may have missed
    something.  Is there some reason you followed the word sceptical with
    (note correct spelling)?  In my dictionary, both skeptical and
    sceptical are considered correct.
    
    Mary2

    "Skeptical" is the preferred American English spelling -- for example,
    the magazine of CSICOP, the well known "skeptics" (note spelling)
    organization, is "the Skeptical Inquirer" spelled just that way.

    As I understand it "Sceptical" is the only correct British English
    spelling.

    In an international conference either spelling would have to be
    considered proper.

					Topher

    
    Regarding the orthography of skeptical - 
    
    Indeed, if one considers the etymology of the word, its origins are in
    the Greek word 'skepsis', meaning doubt (both in ancient and modern
    Greek). Thus, I'd guess that dictionaries here on this side of the
    ocean give preference to that spelling.
    
    On another note, I, personally, am careful not to judge the apparent
    gullibility of others. In many cultures throughout the world, the
    (seeming) fool is often sought out and revered as the possessor of
    great wisdom.  
    
    gloria

WARNUT::TUMSHI::NISBETD 
    
>When Topher moderated me recently, he pointed me to the Conference Notice.
>Typing SHOW CONFERENCE invites the reader to read the notes in topic 1
>before noting.
>
>Note 1.0 states specifically that input is invited from skeptics as well as
>believers. (Is the author in 1.0 any relation btw?).

    Yes.. he is my husband.
    
    I don't recall saying that input from skeptics wasn't invited.  Perhaps
    you misunderstand me.  
    
    you see... now that I understand where Laurie is coming from, I've come
    to agree with him.... and with Ann.  

    
    Laurie,
    
    You may be confusing appreciation for blind acceptance.  Some of us
    have already undergone our own thorough testing, and arrived at belief,
    and so when topics like Guttierez (sp?) are entered, they are
    appreciated; they provide a description that can help clarify
    self-taught knowledge.  And before you start saying it can't be real,
    were things like light or sound any less real before man had devices to
    detect and measure it with?  So, some of us have learned how to
    interpret sensory input that has another source other than the 5
    commonly accepted ones.  You and others may yet come to know how to
    interpret input you currently (but unawares) receive.  It is no less
    real for being undetectable by machines or most humans.  If we lived in
    an environment where sound was unimportant, sound would still exist,
    but we would learn to ignore the input (and over time, the race would
    probably lose the organs by which we hear, but throwbacks do occur). 
    In that case, people discussing sound input would be pooh-poohed or
    thought crazy, gullible, etc.  Until one of the believers could develop
    a machine to "prove" the existence of sound, the majority would
    continue in their disbelief.  So, I believe, is the case of psychic
    experiences. (I am not one for acceptance of the UFO stories yet,
    although I do believe we aren't the only intelligent life in the
    universe.)
    
    It's understood that skeptics exist (with varying levels of
    skepticism).  And this is good.  But rhetorical questions of "how can
    anybody believe that" are useless.  Currently, most come to belief
    through very personal/subjective methods, and no valid objective
    methods exist yet.  Until then, skeptics, keep on questioning ;-)
    
    Beth
    

    
    It used to be that in many banks and stores, they had some kind of
    alarm system that put out a constant sound, and it was so intense that
    it caused me physical pain.
    
    My ex - skeptic that he was - could not hear it, so therefore he did
    not believe me.  
    
    Many years later, he read in some scientific publication that there
    were people who could hear these things while others couldn't, so he 
    decided that I was telling the truth after all.  
    
    Another time, I began to relate to him the story of a friend who 
    described an out-of-body experience.  Immediately his arms folded in
    defense position, and his immediate response was, "Yeah right!"  I
    didn't bother to continue.
    
    Ah well. 
    
    Cindy
                          

    
    Re some previous
    
    Laurie,
    
    I accept you statement that your role in this conference is to provide
    an opposite view, so that the "gullible" or naive will not be easy prey 
    to those unscrupulous people just waiting to take one's money or
    whatever. 
    
    And I also believe *you* believe yourself to be an
    impartial observer and skeptic, but when you enter notes like " What
    a load of old rubbish", that neither states what your observations or
    experiences have been that allow you to make that statement, nor
    supports your position of "impartial observer".
    
    Question all you want, but do not reject or ridicule out of hand
    without evidence to back up your claims. The fact that you have not
    experienced something does not mean it does not exist. 
    
               
    
      

    Silly childish nonsense... a waste of time... they could have been
    accumulating money and power, the fools.

    .... or because you choose not to hear...

I am an avid reader of this conference, but do not
often participate. I felt this particular set of 
interchanges to be very compelling.

I believe that this discussion (the last dozen notes
or so) is really one that surfaces again and
again throughout this conference. The underlying question 
is: "of what value is the scientific
method in evaluating occult phenomenon/experience?"

There are good points to be made on both sides. 
In a company that builds computers (like ours)
there will be many who take for granted that the
scientific method is the ONLY valid method of evaluating
experience. Its like debating whether the glass is half
empty or half full -- nothing is resolved unless the
basic WAY of knowing is addressed.

Within most mystical/spiritual systems
I have come across, the intellect is viewed as 
a barrier to truth, and useful only as a servant of
faith, not the master. Thus, the basis for "knowing"
becomes, simply, faith. This is not to say that common
sense is suspended, but that intuition, dreams, and 
alternative ways of knowing are respected and cultivated 
-- not summarily dismissed.

Whether the intellect is one's primary guide for living
is a very personal decision. I, for one, have found it
to be quite limited...but that is me. I love having
the science types around...they keep me honest.

Metacommunicating -- that is, communicating about the
WAY we communicate -- deals with these types of issues.
I think it would be helpful to establish some ground
rules regarding metacommunication on this particular
issue in this conference. What I specifically propose
is that BOTH ways of knowing are respected and heard,
without ridicule. I think it is important that feelings,
intuitions, dreams and premonitions have a place here,
and that individuals feel that they can share these 
without being subject to scorn. On the other hand,
those that feel uncomfortable without some sort of
intellectual rigor should have the room to say so and
request the information and data they seek. There
is room for both...AND we can be all be respectful of 
both.

Sorry if this sounds more like soapbox! I've enjoyed
reading this conference, and thank all the particpants.

    I only say things like "Do people really believe this stuff", or "What a
    load of old rubbish", when I personally consider the matter presented
    to be complete drivel. For instance, I find it incredible that anyone
    can believe that burning a candle can make things happen or to alter
    the course of history. I also find it incredible that anyone can
    believe that death is caused by "negative" thinking, and is therefore
    preventable. Likewise,"bad thoughts" can cause natural disasters such
    as earthquakes.
    
    Now, I readily admit to being a sceptic, but I have an open mind about
    many things. As for matters such as those outlined above, well I make
    no apologies for believing them to be cranky. People claim many things
    in here, for themselves and for others, and it's easy for some of you
    to say to me that since I can't prove they are not true, then that
    doesn't prove them to be false. Well, that's true and I accept that.
    However, the natural scepticism that I have always brings the thought
    that the person making the claims could be deluded, or dreaming, or
    indeed, bonkers. For instance, alien abductions. Sure, I can't prove it
    didn't happen, but I have a deeply-held belief that human nature being
    what it is, the person claiming it happened to them personally is
    either lying outright for whatever purpose, deluding themselves yet
    believing it, or loopy. The very real possibility that it actually
    happened, and I accept it is a possibility, is way down on my list.
    
    As for the spelling of sceptic/skeptic, its roots in English are not
    Greek, but French, from "sceptique", which is why it's correctly spelt
    (in Britain) with a "c". This French rooting, incidentally, is the
    basis for "ise" in Britain, as opposed to "ize" in America. The latter
    is of Latin and Greek etymology, and truth to tell, etymologically
    correct in a minority of cases where "ise" is used in Britian.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Laurie,
    
    Again, your doubting that different phenomena exist, is your
    prerogative. Calling it "a lot of old rubbish", or the equivalent in
    doubting the sanity of those who believe do not do justice to your
    doubts. That only set you up for the kind of discussions that have been
    going on here lately. You ca state your disagreement, doubt, whatever, 
    and limit it to your personal opinion. We will respect that. But when
    you make statements like the above, ypu are setting yourself up as
    someone who "knows" this to be wrong, false, etc. Your limited
    experience precludes this. All I'm saying is, feel free to express your
    opinion on any subject, but qualify your statements as your opinion
    and experience.
    
    BTW, research your etymology more carefully, skeptic and sceptic are
    derived from the Latin scepticus which itself derived from the Greek,
    Skeptikos.
    
    
    Marilyn  

	re; .67 Laurie
	
	While I accept your beliefs, I find your reference to people who
	experience UFO abductions as liars or "loopy" to be offensive.
	
	I also find objectionable your use of the term "bonkers" for
	persons who claim alternative views.
	
	I respect your right to express your views and your skepticism.
	However, your reference to people here in those terms is not
	acceptable.
	
	Jay

    What I frequently find in this conference is the reaction to a
    suggestion for a little intellect or a little checking is so
    extreme.
    
    Suddenly it's as if someone had advocated 100% intellect and 0%
    everything else, or the adjective "rigorous" miraculously appears
    in front of "testing".
    
    Come on.  If you want to claim that an emotional or a subconscious
    response is valid, then don't be so quick to sneer at an intellectual
    one.  Claiming that ~intellect doesn't do much for me so I don't use
    it~ with the CLEAR implication of ~we are all entitled to reject it
    and sneer at anyone who doesn't~ won't get you anything positive.
    
    Why can't all this be a dream?  Because in a dream, I can ask myself
    "Am I dreaming?" and get the answer "Yes" or "Maybe" -- and I have
    been able to since I was twelve -- but when I'm awake, if I ask "Am
    I dreaming?" I always get the answer "No."  We're all adults here;
    don't act as if you were under twelve and can't tell the inside of
    your head from the outside.
    
    						Ann B.

    Ann,
    
    I don't believe a lot of what is posted here. But those are *my*
    beliefs. Until those things either happen to me, or they become
    important enough in my environment that I need to make a decision 
    whether they are real or not, based on clinical, objective proof, then 
    I just ignore them, for the most part. I don't feel the need to inform
    everyone, in insulting terms what I think of people who believe in
    those items posted.
    
    This is not directed towards you, but to explain a little better what a
    lot of people are peeved about. Everyone has a right to their opinion,
    but to have to endure endless discussion about what garbage is posted
    here, *in almost every note*, is tedious and takes up lots more disk
    space than it's worth.
    
    For example, a lot of medical "facts" are posted here, that are
    contrary to what Jamie knows to be true, from Harry, or his personal
    experience. Those comments he enters refuting those claims, are valid 
    based on his knowledge of standard medical practices and beliefs. 
    But if he were to enter notes that all those "facts" were rubbish 
    without further elaboration, would be fruitless and not conducive 
    to any kind of decent discourse. The fact that some items have not 
    been proved clinically does not make them false or impossible, is 
    another discussion, and that's where one's personal belief system 
    kicks in.
    
    
    Marilyn 

    
    Ditto what Jay wrote in .69.  Very well said.
    
    Cindy

	I only said it to steal the .69  ;-)  ;-)
	(just kiddin, I mean't every word.)
	
	J�

    Is this all a dream?
    
    The answer is simple, but there's no word for it in English.
    
    In Japanese it's called "mu."

    I think there are a lot of sensitive souls in here. Perhaps there is a
    British/American difference, but expressions such as 'loopy' and
    'bonkers' are pretty mild, and usually affectionate.
    
    Another cracker from the Ann B. woman in .70. Nice one. 
    
    Dougie
    

    Dougie,
    
    Er, okay, thanks.  So what's a cracker?
    
    						Ann B.

Ann,

Well there you have me. I don't know how to translate it. Succinct, Punchy,
generally All Right.

Dougie

    Having caught up on this topic, I now know why my ears have been
    burning for the last couple of weeks.

    Jamie.