Conference hydra::dejavu

    Well, I'll describe the _Dune_ version because it is less abstract and
    therefore easier to understand (but not directly relevant to the
    experimental literature, as near as I can tell).

    In Dune, Paul A. (can't remember the precise last name, Atridies?)
    gained, through a combination of genetics and a special drug called
    "spice" gained perfect prevision.  He saw, however, not a single future
    but all the possible futures contingent on his actions.  He could thus
    select the future outcome he wished and act accordingly.

    When he looked into the distant future, however, he found that almost
    every outcome was inconceivably bad.  One precise set of actions,
    though, seemed to lead eventually to a paradise.  He called this set
    of actions "the golden path".  (The irony, though, was that this path
    required him to become the worst despot in human history -- and
    eventually to quite literally give up his humanity, and his life).

    He therefore received feedback across time (across=trans,
    time=temporal) so as to select his actions.  In fact, for the distant
    goals, the future was so hazy and the path so narrow -- as well as
    being affected by the actions of other, less powerful, precogs -- that
    he needed to continually refine and correct his actions so as to stay
    on that shifting path -- continual feedback.

    Although in Dune the process is quite conscious (contrary to the
    strictly apparent goal oriented nature of psi) this shows how mechanism
    per se can be irrelevant.  Paul was conscious of the outcome and didn't
    have to worry about *why* his choices lead to that outcome, only that
    they would do so.

					Topher

    
CADSYS::COOPER
    
    I think that's how it works (more or less) in real life too, Topher.
    ... not a single future... but all the possible futures contingent 
    upon your choice.
    
    The Taoists call it "the Way".  The "Way" might be different depending
    upon the situation one is dealing with... but there is always a
    'way'... one right 'Way' that keeps you on the Path.. and it can be
    hazy and narrow and effected by other precogs so that one's choices
    need to be continually refined and corrected... just like in Dune.
    
    

    re: .1, Topher,
    Ok, thanks, that refreshes my memory of Paul Atreides' "Terrible
    Purpose" and the great Arakkan jihad.  I did a lit paper on it
    in school, in fact, comparing it to something that seemed similar in
    Gordon Dickson's _Tactics_of_Mistake_.  I never really made the
    connection to experimental psi, but it makes sense.  
    
    If you happen across any more experimental references that explicitly
    talk about this, I'd be interested.  
    
    						todd

OK, I'll bite too. ;-)

The shaman I spoke with lately, told me his view on the kind of work he did.
He added that he found a similar description in a book. I am trying to get
in touch with him, but he's probably on a journey right now. ;-)

He told me that he feels that persons take 'quantum steps' in each and every
decision they make. Sometimes the set of steps that persons take, lead them
into an alley of life that blocks them from attaining further goals, leading
to unbalance (in whatever sense): the right roads of life for that person
are simply not available. The work of a shaman is to find the specific step
(=decision) that led to this block, and switch it, so that persons find
themselves in the parallel world where that decision was taken that way.
Without the blocks; with the right roads for further progress available.

When reading Topher's entry on transtemporal feedback, I recognized the
parallel. Dune's description of the Golden Path (prevision, parallel worlds)
confirms it. Yet, it is a rather 'means-oriented' description. ;-)

When I know what book that shaman was referring to, I'll post the title here.

Arie

PS.
Todd, we can set up a great experiment together.
I'll steal a very important object from you, then step into a parallel
world. You just live on for a while, until you really, deeply miss that
object, Then you go to a shaman, and explain the situation.
Then there are two alternatives: either he has this transtemporal thingie,
and you'll pop up in my parallel world, or he has a trans-parallel-world
psychokinesis thingie, and retrieves that object from my parallel world.
There is a third alternative, that has good news and bad news for you.
Bad news is that you have lost your object for good; good news is that you
will not find any more nonsense from me in this notesfile.
:-):-)

>When reading Topher's entry on transtemporal feedback, I recognized the
>parallel. Dune's description of the Golden Path (prevision, parallel worlds)
>confirms it. Yet, it is a rather 'means-oriented' description. ;-)
    
    I thought that was the whole point ?  It sounded to me like Topher's
    original comment was about transtemporal feedback of information and 
    intentionality, not parallel simultaneous worlds and blurring of
    intentionality (?)    I'm getting lost in this discussion again ... 
    						todd

    One of the keynote speakers we're inviting to the conference in
    Washington, D.C., is Fred Alan Wolf.  He has his Ph.D. in physics from
    UCLA, and is the author of many excellent works, including "Parallel
    Universes", and "Taking A Quantum Leap".
    
    At some point during the last decade or so, he went to some very
    interesting places, including Peru, and had some firsthand shamanic 
    experiences. He soon came to realize the truth behind the statement 
    that there is no objective reality - that everything is connected and
    subjective, and that the observer influences the outcome.
    
    We've had some wonderful conversations on the phone too.  He tells
    some of he best stories...especially the one where he unifys with a 
    fly on the window of a monastery in Nepal.
    
    At the conference, he will be speaking on the topic, "Shamanic
    Physics".
    
    From his book, "The Eagle's Quest" (1991), he writes about shamanic 
    physics. Here are the nine hypotheses that he came up with:

      1. All shamans see the universe as made from vibrations.

      2. Shamans see the world in terms of myths and visions that
         at first seemed contrary to the laws of physics.

      3. Shamans perceive reality in a state of altered consciousness.

      4. Shamans use any device to alter a patient's belief about reality.

      5. Shamans choose what is physically meaningful and see all events
         as universally connected.

      6. Shamans enter into parallel worlds.

      7. All shamans work with a higher sense of power.

      8. Shamans use love and sexual energy as healing energy.

      9. Shamans enter the death world to alter their perceptions about
         the world.

>             <<< Note 1840.6 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "forever Amber" >>>
    re: .6, Amber ... err I mean ... Cindy 
    
>      6. Shamans enter into parallel worlds.
    
    	Has Wolf then settled on the parallel worlds view, and assumes it
    	in his hypotheses, (as one of his book titles perhaps implies) or 
    	does this mean something more like "Shamans believe they enter into 
    	parallel worlds" ?
    							todd	

Ah, the literal, "double-blind study" view...

Of course he means entering into other worlds/universes. Shamans do this 
all the time as well as many others. There is a spirit world. But these 
are all things that must be experienced, not read. Reading about 
something is not going to convince or show anyone anything.

Sam

    
    Re.7
    
    Todd,
    
    Given what I've read of his writings so far, I would say that he is
    speaking from his own direct experience.  So it isn't so much a view 
    as it is his experience.  
    
    Kind of like astronauts saying the world is round 'cause they've been 
    out there...for them it's no longer a question of them settling on an 
    intellectual 'view' that it's round.  
    
    I can ask him next time we speak (which may not be until late June), 
    and in the meantime I can suggest reading "The Eagle's Quest" which may 
    give you a deeper understanding.  I haven't yet finished the book, so 
    I can't say for certain that your question is answered in there.
    
    Cindy

RE .7 (Todd)

I checked with the shaman, and he came up with the reference he had
mentioned to me before. It was...... Fred Alan Wolf; 'The Eeagle's Quest'.
Thanks for entering that, Cindy... :-)

>      6. Shamans enter into parallel worlds.
>    
>    	Has Wolf then settled on the parallel worlds view, and assumes it
>    	in his hypotheses, (as one of his book titles perhaps implies) or 
>    	does this mean something more like "Shamans believe they enter into 
>    	parallel worlds" ?

Todd, now *I* am getting lost, I'm afraid. Does this sentence of yours imply
that, once you 'settle' on something, it is 'beyond belief' or so? What I
understand of this shamanic world view (not having read any of Wolf's
books directly), is that the concept of parallelism is an approximation of
what is really experienced, but a very handy one to describe most
experiences.

Very similar to the concept of an electron in physics: it's an
approximation, and it can be used to describe many atomic experiences. But
does this make an electron 'real'? Hm. I'd call it a hypothesis that I
embrace because I wish to see how these experiences interrelate.
I do not believe that makes an electron 'real'. Reality is infinitely larger
- too large to be bound by such crude concepts.

And the same goes for the concept of parallelism for shamans. Are you
interested in their experiences, and how these interrelate? Then it could be
a useful hypothesis. At least a *lot* better than the 'electron' one.
;-)

So back to the topic: transtemporal feedback. Psi-oriented powers (and those
of shamans, if there is a difference between those two), seem to be able to
'pin down' an outcome, suddenly making alternative outcomes improbable. The
persons who use these powers do not seem to bother themselves with the means
to achieve that outcome: for them, only the intention counts. In that sense,
you might say that there is some 'transtemporal feedback mechanism' at work,
separate from the person who 'invokes' the power, that intervenes with
intermediate steps in order to guide it to the outcome-that-is-intended.

Paul Atreides was unlucky ;-) : he not only saw the outcome, and defined his
intention (paradise at the end of the golden path); he also had to provide
for the means *himself* (become the worst dictator of all times). Shamans
define the intention, in a (for themselves) very visual way. Period. The
rest is 'left to the universe', that seems to provide for that
transtemporal feedback mechanism.

I do hope I'm not making it more unclear for you....

Regards,

Arie

         
    Re.10
    
    You're quite welcome, Arie.  (;^)
    
    Todd, I read more of the book over the weekend, especially some
    more references to that hypothesis.  After a while, I just laughed
    and thought there's probably no way I could do justice to what he
    has written by summarizing it in here.  So, you should perhaps
    consider reading the book.  Reading won't give you direct experience,
    but he writes in such a way, and comes from such a strong scientific
    perspective (Ph.D. in physics from UCLA, books that have won science
    awards, etc.), that it makes one stop and think.
    
    Or not think.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Ummm ... Let me try this again.  
    
    Wolf, apparently a physicist and/or author of popular books introducing
    quantum mechanical principles, mentioned something
    about parallel worlds in the quote or paraphrase about 'Shamanic Physics.'
    
    There is a 'multiple worlds' interpretation, I believe, of quantum
    physics.  
    
    My question, arising form the way the principles were quoted or
    paraphrased, was whether Wolf assumes the parallel worlds
    interpretation of quantum physics in his 'Shamanic Physics'
    principles, or whether he reserves judgement on that issue
    and intended to express that principle in terms of the way the
    Shamanic worldview works.  
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    From Carlos Castaneda (on contradiction):
    
    Don Juan said that the new seers were profoundly disturbed by the fact
    that awareness forestalls death and at the same time induces it by
    being food for the Eagle. Since they cound not explain it, for there is
    no rational way to understand existence, seers realized that their
    knowledge is composed of contradictory propositions.
    
    "Why did they develop a system of contradictins?" I asked.
    
    "They didn't develop anything," he said. "They found unquestionable
    truths by means of their *seeing*. Those truths are arranged in terms
    of supposedly blatant contradictions, that's all.
    
    "For example, seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of
    sobriety, and at the same time they must shy away from all of those
    qualities in order to be completely free and open to the wonders and
    mysteries of existence."

    "Old Thrashbarg had said on one occasion that sometimes if you received
    an answer, the question might be taken away.  Some of the villagers
    had privately said that this was the only properly wise thing that
    they'd ever heard Thrashbarg say, and after a short debate on the
    matter, had put it down to chance."
    
    						- Douglas Adams,
    						 _Mostly_Harmless_

                                         
    Got awfully quiet here.  Todd?  Shamanic Silence?  (;^)
    
    Perhaps I can clarify a few things here...
    
    Re.12
    
    >Wolf, apparently a physicist and/or author of popular books introducing
    >quantum mechanical principles, mentioned something
    >about parallel worlds in the quote or paraphrase about 'Shamanic Physics.'
    
    Well, it's probably better to read the book than to take the few lines
    that I entered earlier and overlay your interpretation of *just those
    phrases* and try to have an in-depth discussion here in this conference.
    
    
    >There is a 'multiple worlds' interpretation, I believe, of quantum
    >physics.  
    
    There is Reality.  Then there is *interpretation* of Reality.  Be it
    'multiple worlds' or 'parallel universes', these don't change Reality
    one iota.  Much like moving the hour hand back or forward when we
    switch from/to daylight savings time.
    
    
    >My question, arising form the way the principles were quoted or
    >paraphrased, was whether Wolf assumes the parallel worlds
    >interpretation of quantum physics in his 'Shamanic Physics'
    >principles, or whether he reserves judgement on that issue
    >and intended to express that principle in terms of the way the
    >Shamanic worldview works.  
   
    From what little I have read of his works, I believe that Fred is open
    to 'what lies ahead'.  Much like Newtonian physics was around before 
    quantum physics, so it is with the models you are talking about here.  
    
    Todd, one thing I think you are missing in these kinds of discussions
    is that both Fred and I are coming from the realm of 'direct personal
    experience'.  We have the experiences first, and *then* we look around
    for the existing models to explain them.  Or if the current models do
    not adequately model our experiences, then we take a few cracks at
    coming up with a new one.  Intellect FOLLOWS experience, not vice
    versa.
    
    It occurs to me now that you and at least one other person here that I
    know of, have misunderstood a number of my entries when it comes to
    quoting material from other authors, such as Fred Wolf, Deepak Chopra
    (other person may be obvious now (;^), and so on.
    
    I've only been quoting these people so that you - and not I - might
    take the conclusions they draw between disciplines (with Chopra -
    western medicine vs. ayurveda/energy body, with Wolf - quantum physics
    and shamanism, etc.) and consider them a little more seriously than
    not, because these people have the training, education, and experience
    in the more 'traditional' fields.  And, as a result of *their* direct
    experiences, can see the unity and crossovers in the respective
    disciplines...and that they are trying to express their objective and
    subjective experiences in new models.
    
    Where I'm coming from personally - I quote these people only because
    they put into words that which I've already realized and experienced,
    and because they have 'objective scientific credentials', I cite this
    information too, because I'm hoping that these credentials might make
    them a little more palatable for *your* intellect.  (;^)  *I'm* not
    swayed one way or the other by such things.
    
    Through my direct experience, I have had things happen to me that
    Deepak Chopra writes about, and Fred Wolf, and so on.  When I spoke
    with Fred the other week, we didn't talk about theories.  We talked
    about mutual experiences, visions, images, events, and so on.  I
    realized that my experiences were explained in his shamanic hypotheses
    quite well.  Whether I have been in a 'parallel universe' or wherever, 
    while having these experiences, ultimately it does not matter what words 
    you use.  My experiences still happened - Reality.  
    
    However, since I, too, studied physics at the college level, I find the 
    rest of the stuff he writes about rather interesting as well - finding the
    links between shamanism and quantum physics.  But that's not what we
    talked about...
    
    One thing I can tell you here, is that I have directly experienced a
    miniscule taste of the underlying Unity of everything.  It happened a
    few years ago.  This was beyond the intellect.  This was an
    all-pervasive sensing (through all 5 senses and far beyond) that all is
    One.  At that level of consciousness, there is no 'shamanism' and
    'parallel universes' - everything is One - manifest and unmanifest. 
    Nonduality.  Advaita.                
    
    Yet there's no way I can convey this to you intellectually.  The best I
    can do is cite sources of people who have done the intellectual work in
    certain disciplines, that have had the Unity experience (as Chopra and Wolf 
    have had), and then as they try to explain what happened to them in the 
    terms that people can understand, they write books that I can quote
    from. (;^)  Math equations, hypotheses, theorems, etc.  (;^)  Then these 
    can at least lead the intellect to perceive the Unity from an intellectual 
    perspective.  This is one step in the direction of direct experience - but 
    not a direct substitute for it.  Much like describing the taste of a 
    strawberry to someone who has never tasted one. Or the feeling (yes, it
    is a real sensation) of C'hi energy to one who has never felt it
    directly.
    
    Hope this makes my position more clear.
    
    Cindy
    

    Todd, one thing I think you are missing in these kinds of discussions
    is that both Fred and I are coming from the realm of 'direct personal
    experience'.  We have the experiences first, and *then* we look 
around
    for the existing models to explain them.  Or if the current models do
    not adequately model our experiences, then we take a few cracks at
    coming up with a new one.  Intellect FOLLOWS experience, not vice
    versa.

Cindy,

Your entry was brilliant! You express so well what I have been trying to 
say but I get fustrated and write wisescrack stuff. For me, DIRECT 
experience comes first and then looking for models. And many times there 
isn't anything in Science that can explain an experience yet but that 
does not mean that it is not real. There are many things that I have 
experienced that I can not explain with science. Todd, You're always 
looking for equations, theorems and double-blind studies. It must be a 
terrible way to live, analyzing everything to death. My doctor explained 
it well today when he said "Get out of your head!". 

I agree with all of what you wrote Cindy. 

Sam

    
    Thanks, Sam.  (;^)
    
    I don't think though, that there's necessarily anything wrong with 
    the way that Todd, or anyone else who chooses primarily the intellectual 
    way, approaches things.  For the if intellect probes deeply enough, it 
    will eventually come upon the Unity too.  This is the way of the Jnani
    Yogi.  It isn't my primary way though, nor yours.  And that's OK.
    
    The only time these things become a problem is when one attempts to
    discount the other, instead of recognizing and validating each other's
    ways and working together.  Intellect and Intuition - one should not 
    have to choose one or the other.  Instead, find common ground between 
    the two.  Recognize that *both* have good points.  Respect each other.  
    Listen to each other.  Then work together to come up with an even more 
    complete solution - a more complete model of Reality.  Neither the purely 
    Intellectual nor the purely Intuitive can do this alone, because it 
    will always be incomplete.  It has to be both together.  
    
    Sam, it's easy to let the criticism get you down.  It gets me down on
    occasion too.  I have grown weary more than once here, especially in
    the traditional vs. non-traditional (energy body-based) medicine
    discussion which inevitably turns into a 'prove the energy body exists'
    debate.  And yet I feel it important to continue on, because I'd like 
    to see a world where *both* of these disciplines could work side-by-side 
    in providing the best care possible.
    
    Cindy
                                        

    You're right Cindy. I nevr should have written that the way that I did.
    There are many ways to reach Truth and I have to learn in a better way
    to respect other paths. It's part of my struggle rright now because I
    get told by both my teachers as well as my M.D. to"get  out of my head
    and into my body." So as I go through this transition, I express
    fustration at others we are mirrors of what I do. I sit and analyze
    everything too and it has been my shortfall, even medically. Thanks
    Cindy for pointing that out. The two displines do need to come together
    and sorry Todd for my tone.
    
    Sam
    

    re: Cindy, Sam, (and possibly Arie),
    
    I didn't mean to ignore the discussion, I've just not had much chance
    to do Notes lately.  I appreciate the time and energy that Cindy and
    Sam devoted to this topic, and which Arie devoted to a mail exchange
    with me.
    
    Possibly we differ with regard to what the appropriate tools or
    approaches are for various kinds of human activities.
    
    I don't deny the feeling or spiritual dimension of human experience,
    or it's significance.
    
    I've seen people's lives change dramatically for the better from
    mystical or transformative experience.  A psychiatrist, Arnold
    Mandell, whose career I've followed and who made some very
    significant contributions to neuroscience, went through
    a mid-life crisis and changed the direction of his life
    and his work significantly, breaking free of some of the mechanistic
    limitations of his previous view.  Yet still remained well within
    the limits of what I consider valuable science.  And he spends more
    time at the beach now. :-)
    
    Re-reading some of our Notes, some of the stereotypes I see presented 
    about 'intellect' and 'heart' are amusing.  No one could possibly be as 
    one-dimensional as we sometimes accuse each other of being, and still
    survive into adulthood.  Between the cynical analytical intellectuals 
    who can't feel their own bodies, and the bliss-junkies who can't
    think straight past their navel, we're one hell of a bizarre species.  :-)
    
    As I said to Arie in mail, I think this discussion long since
    became counterproductive.  You'll probably never convince me that
    (re: Chopra) an energy body model is neccessary to explain unusual cellular 
    communication if someone has an equally or better testable and falsifiable
    physical/biochemical model.  Neither can I believe that any current
    physical/biochemical model explains the cases of telepathy or pk so
    far.  So I don't have any sweeping conclusions to make about the
    nature of reality and its best description in general to counter
    or concur with yours.   And no reason to believe that tribal shamanism
    'converges' with quantum physics in any more than an interesting
    but very vague way, possibly a language artifact.   I could always
    be wrong, of course.
    
    					warm regards,
    							todd

    
    Todd,
    
    I feel (and think) that it's very important to continue to seek the
    converging points.
    
    Going back to 'direct experience' again, I cite the Sahaja Yoga energy
    techniques as being paramount in reducing my daily migraine medication
    by 1/3rd when I first began doing them.  I have been able to maintain
    this reduction too, by the way.
    
    This has absolutely nothing to do with what you have in the past deemed
    the 'spiritual' realm.  It has nothing to do with my 'belief' that the
    techniques work.  Just like if you experience a headache and take an
    aspirin to relieve it, so is it that if I have a fellow Sahaja Yogi, or
    anyone who understands basic clearing of the energy field (via
    polarity, energy balancing, or even accupuncture for that matter), it
    will achieve the same result for me.  Whereas if *I* take an aspirin to
    relieve this kind of headache, it will do absolutely nothing for it. 
    Won't even touch it.  I know...I tried for years.  I've also used these
    techniques on others to relieve their headaches (among other things),
    and they *do* work...even on those who start out extremely skeptical
    that they would work (as I did when I first went to that Sahaja Yoga
    gathering).
    
    I don't know if you've ever had to suffer with chronic pain, so I don't
    know if you can empathize at all with what I'm saying.  I just see that
    alternative medicine could help so many people get relief from immense
    amounts of pain that traditional medicine cannot offer them...based on
    my own direct experience...
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    I get a distinct feeling that our conversations are disjoint
    even though we address each other.  I wish I were brilliant, too,
    or at least not dense, so I could follow this thread better.  :-)
    
    My simple perspective is that if I know in a precise 
    way what's actually going on in a given biological effect, I can 
    potentially make even better use of it than someone who imagines they 
    understand it completely just because it agrees with some ancient
    and venerable and likely even useful, but imprecise theory.  At some point, 
    precision knowledge overtakes even the richness of ancient wisdom, for
    _some_ things.  I'm not talking about ethics here, but technology.
    For better or for worse.  Eventually ...
    
    That of course is largely a matter of faith.  If 'scientism' was a
    true religion rather than a pejorative, I'd likely be an altar boy.
    
    You don't really want to corrupt an innocent altar boy, do you ? ;-)
    
    Taking an example, if I find a mechanism for a particular psychosomatic
    response, like an immune response to a particular brain state,
    I can potentially augment other forms of therapy with that knowledge.
    
    I could electrically or pharmacologically or nutritionally augment the 
    placebo effect in a therapy that makes use of it ... in a way that 
    someone without neurobiological experiments might not have ever
    thought of.  But not if I were to hold on to quaint models
    that were too sacred or too clever to undergo peer review or the 
    experimental controls in vitro and in vivo that seem to make some people
    so uncomfortable.  If a technology like acupuncture could incorporate
    electricity, why couldn't it incorporate other innovations ?  But they
    might require a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms,
    whether a detailed analysis of field effects, a biochemical analysis,
    or something not yet dreamed of.
    
    If you reply to that with a quote from Casteneda's story books, or a Yoga 
    manual, I'll know 'dialogue' is pretty much futile at this point.  :-}
    
    						warm regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Todd,
    
    Last night I was working with some of my friends on the upcoming
    conference.  One fellow had a headache, had taken some aspirin or
    Tylenol, but it didn't have any effect.  We all had dinner together.
    The headache still did not go away.
    
    From across the table, I 'unified' with him/his energy field, and
    described/verified where his head pain was located. 
    
    After dinner, I dimmed the lights somewhat, went over and stood
    beside him and worked on clearing the energy blocks in his head area,
    for 5-10 minutes and got the energy to flow properly.   
    
    His pain disappeared.  Everyone could see it in his face.
    
    It's really not any more difficult than this.
    
    I don't know what you personally would call this, however the HEF
    (Human Energy Field) model that Barbara Brennan writes about in her book 
    "Hands Of Light", seems to explain this healing process rather well.  
    Perhaps this book might provide to you the scientific explanation for 
    this process, since she is a former NASA physicist.  (Note, however,
    that I cite her background for you...I don't need the explanation to
    prove that the technique works.  My friend seemed quite satisfied with 
    the results. (;^)  
    
    Cindy

    re: .22, Cindy,
    	
    	Ok, thanks very much.
    
    		todd

    
    Re.23
    
    Oh good...(;^)
    
    You're welcome, Todd.  
    
    Cindy