| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1965.1 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | Cat's eyes on the Info Highway. | Wed Jun 22 1994 07:46 | 6 |
| Head injuries and NDEs are not necessarily linked. My NDE was not
related in any way to my head. However (I assume that your aneurysm was
in your head) there may have been some minor changes to your brain
tissue, which might explain it.
Jamie.
|
| 1965.2 | My feelings | DWOVAX::STARK | Knowledge is good. | Wed Jun 22 1994 10:39 | 49 |
| It's part of the unanswered problem of the nature of consciousness,
I think. I don't think anyone can claim to have a definitive answer to
where "psychic" impressions come from. Some (I'd say the vast
majority) are demonstrably of our own making, creating an impetus for us
to act in a way that is personally meaningful to the individual.
Kenneth Ring does a good treatment of this aspect in his Omega Project
where he studies the predispositions and aftermath of hundreds of
people with extraordinary experiences, particularly the NDE.
Other impressions seem to have sources which are unknown or highly
speculative. The vast majority are associated with sleep, indicating
that they have something to do with the way the brain functions
differently during sleep. Some of the most bizarre experiences,
such as nightime psychic visitations in the form of sexual assault
have been found related strongly directly to a combination of
sleepers paralysis (waking partially but being unable to move yet)
and vivid hypnopompic or hypnogogic imagery. Ron Seigel does a
particularly interesting treatment of this in his "Fire in the Brain."
Berievement hallucinations are also very common. In fact most people
who have suffered a recent loss probably experience some form of this.
The classic case was the man who lost a beloved dog, and everyday at
the dogs meal time for several months after the loss, he would
get fleeting images of the dog running toward his bowl.
If you believe in disembodied consciousness, then you could also see
how this would be the most sensitive period for contact by such an
influence.
When we deal in areas that are so speculative, we can choose to view them
with uncertainty (which is psychologically uncomfortable) or we can try to
fit them into existing frameworks, depending on whether our
interest is personal/spiritual or academic/intellectual.
As someone who is basically a realist by habit, I'd say that most
psychic impressions seem to me to come from known physiological
mechanisms and that most of the rest come from the mundane but
incomprehensible workings of the neurons in the brain. But as someone who
has also read a fair amount of the parapsychology research, I'd say that
there are several big unanswered questions and anomalies left to explore,
some cases where impressions or influences have no reasonable conventional
explanation at this time other than simply rejecting them outright
purely out of implausibility.
My hope is that we continue to explore them realistically and not give up
simply because it is uncomfortable to be uncertain or because the mystical
philosophies are so intuitively attractive.
todd
|
| 1965.3 | | SWAM2::REUTTER_CA | | Wed Jun 22 1994 15:18 | 34 |
| I have so many thoughts on this subject that it is very difficult to
express them. My own experiences leads me to believe that "dreams" or
thoughts of deceased loved ones are real.
Here is just one of my experiences:
16 years ago, a very close family member passed away. At the exact time
of his passing all of his siblings had "bizarre" dreams. One dreamed
he was on an operating table, one dreamed of headlights coming at them,
one dreamed they were in their home at a reception where all were in
tears. All awoke at precisely the same time. At the funeral the
siblings were talking and realized that they all had been notified of
his death during their sleep.
Their mother who was very close to her son, could not accept his death
at all and wandered around confused during the wake and funeral. A
month passed and she still did not accept that her son had passed on.
The family tried to confront her with the facts of his death, but she
would not listen or accept. A month later, she had a "Dream". In this
dream he spoke to her and told her he was very happy and that she
should not be upset anylonger. She conveyed this "dream" (she insist
she was awake during the time of his visit)to me and said that he was
as real to her as I was when he came to visit her. I
believed her because I had felt his presence for quite some time.
I later had a psychic tell me that he wander amongst the family, going
where he felt he was needed.
Somehow I told more about this than I had intended, but less than I
could. The bottom line is that it does not matter what other people
believe you are experiencing. If you believe that you are
having a visit from a loved one, you probably are.
|
| 1965.4 | Weird modern view of dreams | DWOVAX::STARK | Knowledge is good. | Wed Jun 22 1994 15:36 | 12 |
| Surprisingly (to me), the growing consensus in neuroscience in recent
years has been that dreams are considered random noise, most of
which none of us even remembers, and that we build our
elaborate interpretations of them upon waking, at which time
we read meaningful things into them and retroactively 'remember'
them as making some sense. I guess I find that a little hard
to swallow, but I can't find any really convincing observation
that disproves it, and a lot of observations seem to support it.
Sometimes the world seems stranger than we can imagine.
todd
|
| 1965.5 | | GOODIE::KEEFER | | Wed Jun 22 1994 18:22 | 44 |
| .0
logic? what is logic? cause and effect?
is it knowing that if place A is stimulated in one's brain tissue, then
one will envision one's grandmother transending time and predicting a
future event in one's life? is that more logical than believing people
are other than a pound of tissue? (pound and a half?--not sure)
didn't mean to equate mind with brain, however.
mostly i'm wondering what you think the subconscious is. and why you
made it possessive --my subconscious. and why the message wasn't really
granny's consciouness if it came from your subconscious. i sincerely
wonder. the last time i saw a subconscious it was in a psychology
flow chart, below consciousness --there was a clear pecking order in
the chart. it had all that directional-type thinking: stuff at the top
was more important than stuff at the bottom, up and down, left to
right, etc. i forget where the collective unconscious fell and
whether that had anything to do with what some call the universal mind.
are you and she as separate as you think? deceased and alive?
there are so many thoughts on the separation between the so-called
physical world and the --what?-- non-physical world? spiritual world?
so many people in this conference know that expertly --thoughts
on whether the physical world is or isn't separate from other
dimensions. sometimes it seems a blessing that the so-called physical
world is just an illusion, sometimes it seems a blessing that it is not
separate from anything else.
i think anyone who tells me that audio/visual media is the only way to
communicate is out of his tree. anyone who tells me watching
electricity make letters on a screen is the most advanced way to
communicate is nuts. if all i have to look forward to is puching
plastic keys with my fingers in a effort to communicate, then i'm
throwing in the towel right now. all of the time, energy, money spent
stringing cables, fueling power plants, making telephones, spending
billions on those new video phones --supposedly for reasons of
communicating --makes me want to vomit. why do people think you need a
stinking video phone to talk to or see someone?
i don't believe any of my thoughts are only mine, or that my mind is
mine, or that my subconscious is mine.
|
| 1965.6 | | SWAM2::REUTTER_CA | | Wed Jun 22 1994 19:06 | 3 |
| I agree with all but the last statement of .5. "free Choice"...
|
| 1965.7 | searching to understand | ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL | | Wed Jun 22 1994 19:48 | 50 |
| Re: .4
Sometimes the world seems stranger than we can imagine...
I wholeheartedly agree
Re: .5
I really agree with you. In my heart there is so much more than what
we see and feel every day.
I have kept a dream journal for years now. I have had extraordinary
experiences and maybe in my quest to try and control what happens to me
or when it happens, this is what I get...
It isn't that I want to have hte power, but to be able to talk to
deceased loved ones when I feel I need them as opposed to when they
feel I need then...
Anotherwords, why do they pick such times to show up? So I begin to
try and call them to me, but I am unable. Then many months go by and I
hear/see/feel nothing and I may forget...then they will come. I have
(other than this notesfule) and small handful of people I can talk to
who don't tell me it's me, my brain, wahtever
Yes,I know, why should I listen to them,etc etc
The point is I was just trying to understand what everything is, and
maybe I should not try and understand. I guess I might be better off
just accepting things as they are and not questioning.
Thankfully I swept all the religious background out so I can see them
for what they are...not some devil's message or whatever, which was how
the nuns wanted to classify anything they couldn't explain/understand
I wish I could control it a bit...that's all...
It's weird when it happens in a dream because sometimes I don't know if
it was just a regular dream or was there something I was supposed to
get from it.
Also, time...
I heard that after a certain amount of itme the loved ones move on...
however, I had a "visitation" recently by someone who died nearly 9
years ago and I wonder...(since I was awake)
I'm just searching for an understanding really...
|
| 1965.8 | some things | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Jun 23 1994 01:23 | 106 |
|
Re.0
You might be interested in the following book by Grof (excerpt below).
It is a classic in the field of transpersonal psychology. It may
contain the answers you seek, presented in the way you are seeking them.
Some other good books on the subject are:
"The Eagle's Quest" and "The Dreaming Universe" by Fred Alan Wolf
"The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying", by Sogyal Rinpoche
"The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot
I was in a weekend seminar with Fred Wolf and Nicki Scully back in
April, and a lot of the seminar was on dreams and death. For the
death stories...it was Saturday night, we extinguished all lights
except for the fire in the woodburning stove (;^), and Fred and
Nicki shared some of their stories. Quite incredible...mindblowing
even. Then Nicki was going to take us on the death shamanic journey,
but changed it to the Cobra journey instead. Ah well...maybe next
time.
Anyway, the chances are very good that what you experienced is quite
real, as opposed to being a product of your mind. Eventually you
will get some kind of confirmation that will remove all doubt. One
amusing conversation that Cherokee wisdomkeeper Dhyani Ywahoo had
with her deceased grandmother was when her husband picked up the
phone, recognized her grandmother's voice and handed Dhyani the phone
saying, "Uh oh...it's for you." And it really was her deceased
grandmother! The story appears in "Profiles In Wisdom", by Steven
McFadden. So...be ready...(;^)
Not too long ago, I had a dream about the father of a friend of mine
who lives in Europe. Absolutely no reason to dream of him either,
since I'd never met him. I didn't see his face so much, but rather
felt his presence. A few days went by, and I exchanged a few emails
with my friend. He mentioned that he felt his father trying to
contact him a few days ago...felt his presence. I told him of my
dream, and then he said that his wife had also had him appear in a
dream on the very same night. So, it was a confirmation for him
that his feeling was right...that it was his father and not his mind.
He and I are also telepathically linked, but that's a whole 'nother
set of stories and experiences altogether!
Cindy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The Holotrophic Mind", by Stanislav Grof, M.D., p.141-142
Beyond A Shared Reality
Myths do not come from a concept system; they come from a
life system; they come out of a deeper center. We must not
confuse mythology with ideology. Myths come from where the
heart is, and where the experience is, even as the mind may
wonder why people believe these things. The myth does not
point to a fact; the myth points beyond facts to something
that informs the fact."
- Joseph Campbell
There is a large category of transpersonal experiences that goes
beyond both the time-space continuum and the reality we know in our
everyday lives. Here we experience the world of myth, apparitions,
communication with the dead, and the ability to see auras, chakras, or
other subtle energies not generally recognized or verified by modern
scientific methods. Here we might also experience meetings with
spirit guides, "power animals", and various superhuman or subhuman
entities, or we might go on fantastic journeys to universes other than
our own.
The late Aldous Huxley made the observation that the extraordinary
world we encounter here is not to be too quickly dismissed as purely
mental fabrications with no particular purpose. He said:
"Like the giraffe and the duck-billed platypus, the
creatures inhabiting these remoter regions of the mind are
exceedingly improbable. Nevertheless they exist, they are
facts of observation; and as such, they cannot be ignored by
anyone who is honestly trying to understand the world in
which he lives."
In this chapter, we will be exploring these remoter regions of
consciousness in some detail, drawing from descriptions of
experiential sessions by a variety of people. We will begin with one
of the more controversial areas in this realm - communication with the
dead.
Spiritualistic and Mediumistic Experiences
In this category, we include spiritualistic seances, research into the
possibility of survival of consciousness after death, telepathic
communication with deceased relatives and friends, contacts with
discarnate entities, and experiences in the astral realm. In the
simplest form, people see apparitions of deceased people and receive
messages from them. For example, the day following her husband's
death, a woman saw her deceased husband sitting in his favorite chair
in the living room. He greeted her and asked her how she was doing.
She answered that she was okay. Then he told her where to find some
legal papers she would need for finalizing his estate. She had not
known of their whereabouts and the information he gave her was useful,
saving her many hours of searching. Experiences of this kind have
been reported by clients in experiential psychotherapy, and
psychedelic sessions, in the work of psychics, and by people who have
had near-death experiences (NDEs).
|
| 1965.9 | | GOODIE::KEEFER | | Thu Jun 23 1994 12:06 | 2 |
| aren't your loved ones the same as your mind?
just wondering....
|
| 1965.10 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Jun 23 1994 13:34 | 8 |
|
Re.9
Not sure who your question is for, however my response would be that it
depends upon what level of consciousness one is operating on at any
given moment.
Cindy
|
| 1965.11 | More on modern view of dreams | DWOVAX::STARK | Knowledge is good. | Thu Jun 23 1994 13:35 | 193 |
| re: .4 (on weird modern view of dreams)
Of course, a consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. I found
this recently from my files from the PSYCHE mailing list talking
about a different view of dreams -- as "off-line" processing of
information we would otherwise be overloaded with... (Hope someone
finds it as interesting as I did). I tried to keep the essential
attributions.
From: Kurt Wallen <[email protected]>
I am interested in knowing why a model of dreaming proposed by Jonathon
Winson has never generated any real interest. What follows is a rough sketch
of his model, as interpreted by me and without the supporting evidence that
he presented in his book.
I then provide, for comment, some possible reasons why it may have been
poorly received.
In 1985 J. Winson at Rockefeller University published _Brain and Psyche_. In
it he argued that dreaming was *off-line processing*. His argument went
something like this:
1. When memory consolidation is interfered with due to hippocampal damage
(e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome) there is a three year "blank" that preceeds the
onset of damage, suggesting that three years is the amount of time it takes
new information to work its way through the system.
2.The hippocampus recieves input from neocortex and limbic (amygdala) areas.
Suggesting that its function is (in part) to integrate facts with emotions,
i.e. what it is with what it means.
3.Monotremes (e.g. the echidna) have an extremely large neocortex. They also
do not exhibit REM sleep leading Winson to argue that monotremes are able to
process new information into the memory system in *real-time*. The large
forebrain coupled with a so-called primitive system was not overwhelmed by
the task. Winson argues that for mammals to pursue such a strategy would
require that our neocortex be transported in a wheelbarrow.
4.Thus, we adopted a strategy other than *real-time* processing to integrate
new information into the memory system. This process is what we experience
as dreaming.
Over half of the book is given over to description and analysis of Freud's
model of dreaming. Winson argues that the characteristic nature of dreams
were misinterpreted by Freud. E.G. Freud saw the distortion of dreams
(displacement, condensation, etc.,) as the work of a *dream censor* actively
scrambling the latent meaning and disguising it so that the manifest content
would be acceptable to the ego. Winson argues that distortion in dreams is
not result of a *disguising* mechanism but rather, is the way that the
preconscious handles information.
Much of Winson's arguement rests on a (to me) complicated argument about
neural gating in the hippocampus that is intended to demonstrate that
*dreamed experience* is in fact coupled with the lived experience on which it
is based. While the neurophysiological evidence may make his model more
rigourous, it doesn't seem to me to figure in the idea that dreaming is
off-line processing.
Winson's ideas seem to have had no impact.
From: IN%"[email protected]" "David Baldwin" 7-JUN-1994 13:31:31.03
I'd like to second Kurt Wallen's questions about Jonathan Winson's ideas
about dreaming. I've read much of Winson's stuff, and found it
interesting. Unfortunately, I'm in a rush to get out of town now and
can't respond in detail in this post.
But for those who may not want to read his 1985 book, there are newer and
shorter descriptions of Winson's work. I will list some of these below,
with occasional and very brief notes on content (since its been awhile...):
Winson, J. (1990)
The meaning of dreams.
Scientific American, Nov., 86-96.
Kinoshita, J. (1992)
Dreams of a rat.
Discover, 13 (7), July, 34-41.
[These two (above) are very accessible and brief summaries of Winson's
stuff. They will provide more details than Kurt's summary (which seemed
OK to me) without the detail of the book.]
Winson, J. (1992)
The function of REM sleep and the meaning of dreams.
IN: JW Barron, MN Eagle & DL Wolitsky (Eds.) Interface
of Psychoanalysis and Psychology, 347-356. Wash DC: APA.
[A more academic treatment by Winson, contrasting his hypothesis with
Hobson's and Crick's ideas about dreams.]
Winson, J. (1993)
The biology and function of rapid eye movement sleep.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 3, 243-248.
[I forget what's in this one, and can't look it up just now.]
When I come back Thursday evening, I look forward to seeing more
information about this, since I think Winson's ideas deserve more
consideration than I've seen about them. Perhaps they just don't fit with
the current zeitgeist?
David Baldwin, PhD
From: IN%"[email protected]" "Robert A.Buckley" 7-JUN-1994 13:37:18.07
I was very interested in your posting on Wilson's model
of dreaming, and I'll be interested to follow the whole
thread.
I hadn't been familiar with this model before, so I can't
comment on its lack of acceptance. However, if I'm not mistaken,
Francis Crick (when he first turned his attention to the problem
of how brain gives rise to consciousness, several years ago)
proposed a similar model. Whether or not he based it on
Wilson's model I don't know.
[ I'm sorry, but I don't have the reference for this paper. It was
probably published in _Nature_, maybe 10 or more years ago now.
If I get a chance, I'll run a search on this. ]
But I believe that Crick explored the hypothesis by writing a
computer program that simulated brain function in a crude way
by taking in "perceptions" which could then be associated in
various ways to form a sort of model of "reality". The perceptions
were thrown in willy-nilly, and associations could happen at
random as well as, I believe, according to certain rules of lawful
association.
He then formed an analogue of "dreaming" by allowing off-line
processing to occur, which had the effect of randomly forming
associations and then dropping out those which seemed unlawful.
One of the conclusions he drew from this was that the forgetting
of dream material soon after awakening is not due to some sort
of unconscious censor as analysts have held, but is a physiological
discarding of faulty associations. This would also "explain" why
dream material, when it is remembered, seems so bizarre.
Personally, I think that something like this makes sense, but
I think that whatever model we finally accept would have to
explain why _some_ dreams are so richly expressive of the central
conflicts in our lives.
Bob Buckley, MD
[email protected]
From: IN%"[email protected]" 7-JUN-1994 18:24:06.68
>In 1985 J. Winson at Rockefeller University published _Brain and Psyche_. In
>it he argued that dreaming was *off-line processing*. His argument went
>something like this:
Several theories of the function of dreaming are discussed in Hobson's
books ("The dreaming brain", Penguin books, & "Sleep", Scientific American
Library). Information-processing theories are mentioned (including variants
of "sorting" or "garbage collection"). He argues that no theory excludes
another, since dreams may have functions at several levels (physiological,
neurological, psychological, ecological, behavioral, cognitive, ...).
>1. When memory consolidation is interfered with due to hippocampal damage
>(e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome) there is a three year "blank" that preceeds the
>onset of damage, suggesting that three years is the amount of time it takes
>new information to work its way through the system.
My students take less time to learn...
>3.Monotremes (e.g. the echidna) have an extremely large neocortex. They also
>do not exhibit REM sleep leading Winson to argue that monotremes are able to
>process new information into the memory system in *real-time*. The large
>forebrain coupled with a so-called primitive system was not overwhelmed by
>the task. Winson argues that for mammals to pursue such a strategy would
>require that our neocortex be transported in a wheelbarrow.
Dolphins have an extremely large neocortex; humans too. But they dream.
Reptilians have small brains, but do not dream. It is thus not a matter of
size, but rather that primitive brains don't dream.
>Over half of the book is given over to description and analysis of Freud's
>model of dreaming. Winson argues that the characteristic nature of dreams
>were misinterpreted by Freud. E.G. Freud saw the distortion of dreams
>(displacement, condensation, etc.,) as the work of a *dream censor* actively
>scrambling the latent meaning and disguising it so that the manifest content
>would be acceptable to the ego. Winson argues that distortion in dreams is
>not result of a *disguising* mechanism but rather, is the way that the
>preconscious handles information.
He is right to do so. Hobson also demolishes Freud, showing that it is an
ideological construction inspired by a wrong model of brain function.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Ronse [email protected]
|
| 1965.12 | An ancient Aboriginal view of dreams | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Jun 23 1994 16:00 | 240 |
| <<< SCHOOL::LARRY_BIRD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UU.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Unitarian Universalism >-
================================================================================
Note 193.1 Aboriginal Dreamings 1 of 2
AIRPRT::PAINTER "Back from OZ, and the Wizard said" 233 lines 14-JUN-1989 18:57
-< Book contents about the Secret >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The Secret Of Dreaming", by Jim Poulter
----------------------------------------------
Foreward:
This is the story of why the Land is sacred and why Man must be its Caretaker.
In celebration of the Australian heritage.
150,000 years of human society
200 years of political identity
- to know the past is to see the future
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of book:
"Once there was nothing.
Nothing but the Spirit of All Life
For a long time
there was nothing.
Then
in the mind of the Spirit of Life
...A Dreaming began.
In the empty darkness
there was a Dreaming of Fire.
And the colour of Fire burned brightly
in the Mind of the Great Spirit
Then came the Dreaming of Wind,
and the fire danced and swirled
in the mind of the Spirit of Life
Then came a Dreaming of Rain
For a long time
the battle of Fire Wind and Rain
raged in the Dreaming
And the Great Spirit liked the Dream.
So the Dreaming continued.
Then, as the battle waned
between Fire Wind and Rain
There came a Dreaming
of Earth and Sky
and of Land and Sea.
For a long time
this Dreaming continued.
The Great Spirit began to grow tired
from the Dreaming,
but wanted the Dream to continue.
So life was sent into the Dream
to make it real,
and for Creator Spirits
to continue the Dreaming.
So the Spirit of Life
sent the Secret of Dreaming
into the world
with the Spirit of the Barramundi.
And Barramundi
entered the deep still waters,
...and began to Dream
Barramundi Dreamed
of waves and wet sand,
But Barramundi
did not understand the Dream
and wanted to Dream
only of the deep still water.
So Barramundi
passed the Secret of Dreaming
to the Spirit of the Currikee,
which is the Turtle.
And Currikee
came out of the waves
onto the wet sand
...and began to Dream.
Currikee Dreamed
of the rocks and warm sun.
But Currikee
did not understand the Dream,
and wanted to Dream
only of the waves
and wet sand.
So Currikee
passed the Secret of Dreaming
on to the Spirit of the Bogai,
which is the Lizard.
And Bogai
climbed onto a rock
and felt the warm sun on his back
...and began to Dream.
Bogai Dreamed
of the wind and the open sky.
But Bogai
did not understand the Dream
and wanted to Dream
only of the rocks
and warm sun.
So Bogai
passed the Secret of Dreaming
onto the Spirit of the Bunjil,
which is the Eagle.
And Bunjil
rose into the open sky
felt the wind in his wings
...and began to Dream.
Bunjil Dreamed
of the trees and the night sky,
But Bunjil
did not understand the Dream
and wanted to dream
only of the wind
and open sky.
So Bunjil
passed the Secret of Dreaming,
onto the Spirit of the Coonerang,
which is the possum.
And Coonerang
climbed high into the tree,
looked at the night sky,
...and began to Dream.
Coonerang Dreamed
of wide plains and yellow grass.
But Coonerang
did not understand the Dream,
and wanted to Dream
only of the trees and the night sky.
So Coonerang
passed along the Secret of Dreaming
onto the Spirit of the Kangaroo.
And the Kangaroo
stood tall,
looked across the plain of yellow grass
...and began to Dream.
Kangaroo Dreamed
of music, and song and laughter.
But Kangaroo
did not understand the Dream
and wanted to Dream
only of the wide plains
and yellow grass.
So Kangaroo
passed the Secret of Dreaming
onto the Spirit of Man.
And man
walked across the land
and saw all the works of creation
He heard the birdsong at dawn
and saw the red sun at dusk,
...and began to Dream.
Man Dreamed
of sharing the music of dawnbirds,
the dance of the emu
and the red ochre of sunset
And he Dreamed also
of the laughter of children
And man understood the Dream
So he continued to Dream
of all the things
that had been dreamed before.
He dreamed
of the deep still water,
of the waves and wet sand,
the rocks and warm sun,
the wind and open sky,
the trees and the night sky,
and the plains of yellow grass.
And Man knew through the Dreaming,
that all creatures
were his spirit cousins
...and that he must protect their Dreaming.
And he Dreamed
of how he would tell these secrets
to his child
who was not yet born.
Then the Great Spirit knew at last
that the Secret of Dreaming was safe.
And being tired
from the Dreaming of Creation,
the Spirit of Life entered the land
to rest
So that now,
when the spirits of all creatures
become tired
they join the Spirit of Life in the Land
So this is why the Land is sacred
and man must be its Caretaker.
|
| 1965.13 | I don't think it's quite so scientific | ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL | | Sat Jun 25 1994 02:58 | 45 |
| Re: .12
That is beautiful. I've never seen that before.
The note referring to the scientific theory which did not catch on is
interesting, the theory of off-line processing.
I am not certain I agree with the fact that we do not remember things
because we "discard what is not lawful" so to speak, and keep what is
bizarre.
Haven't we had dreams that made absolutely zero sense? That we could
not tie in to our lives somehow? Is everything we dream related to
what is going on in our lives?
I'll admit that most of what I remember seems to make sense if I
consider what is going on in my waking hours but I do not think that
every single thing is tied...(who knows, maybe it is?)
I feel that there is so much more to our dreams, so much of ourselves,
that we cannot clasify the dreams as b eing purely scientific. I think
that a lot of who we are goes into them, or maybe the super-natural,
and that cannot be analyzed.
For example, when my deceased relatives/friends come to me and show me
things of the future, and I tell people about them upon waking, and
then tye come to pass...how can you categorize that scientifically?
I guess I may be answering my own original question here...that the
dreams and things are not my mind, but that they happen.
See, something I may not have mde totally clear...this kind of thing
has happened while I've been awake,before I've entered a dream (or even
pre-dream) state...meaning, I'm wide awake.
I think the brain is connected...because, for instance, I notice a
significant increase in dejavu incidents when I'm tired/over-tired, but
I am trying to close the gap as to how the brain is involved...
I will definitely get a hold of the reading material because it's of
great interest to me, and again, I thank all for their input...
I value it...
|
| 1965.14 | My response | DWOVAX::STARK | Knowledge is good. | Mon Jun 27 1994 10:40 | 35 |
|
| I feel that there is so much more to our dreams, so much of ourselves,
| that we cannot clasify the dreams as b eing purely scientific. I think
| that a lot of who we are goes into them, or maybe the super-natural,
| and that cannot be analyzed.
There is a difference though between not wanting to have something
explained because it seems to take the richness and meaning out of it and
claiming that it cannot be explained in other terms. For some people,
understanding something better in terms of natural processes doesn't take
the meaning out, it makes it that much more remarkable. Where do these
natural processes come from, and why are they in the form they are in ?
No, reducing the supernatural to the natural doesn't trivialize the
universe, it makes it that much more incredible.
There's a tendency in serious study of nature toward reducing real
things into two dimensional images. Yes, they lose some of their
life, like observing insects which are mounted on pins instead of
observed in the process of living their lives.
But for every bit of meaning removed by study, another bit
is also gained, because we come closer to understanding with
our eyes less clouded by wishful thinking and we can observe
the aspects of nature that are *truly* awesome, and not just
appearing to be awesome.
Most of the meaning in dreams is real, but I think it is meaning
we imbue them with ourselves. To me that's much more interesting
than believing that some cosmic hierarchy of characters brings
meaning to our lives and destiny.
kind regards,
todd
|
| 1965.15 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Mon Jun 27 1994 12:27 | 12 |
| Re.14
>believing that some cosmic hierarchy of characters...
Todd,
When one has direct experience of such things, 'believing' is no
longer necessary.
(;^)
Cindy
|
| 1965.16 | IE: Off-Line Processing | NPSS::CREEGAN | | Mon Jun 27 1994 14:24 | 15 |
| I had a good example of an "Off-Line Processing" dream.
While I was in college I took a course in Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS). I was over my head and in a bit of a panic.
When I am very tired I tend to get more vivid, wild, colorful dreams,
but during a bout of anxiety about the class I had a helpful dream.
In the dream I was in a classroom. All the chairs were full of
students. All of the students were me (ironic, since I am an identical
twin). The teacher/professor was me, too. I remember feeling
entertained. On the blackboard was the very problem I was experiencing
in the class. AND THEN I PROCEEDED TO TELL MYSELF WHERE THE PROBLEM
WAS AND HOW TO FIX IT. And "I" was right. When I woke up and checked
my program, the error was right where "the professor" showed me.
|
| 1965.17 | The value of the remembrance itself ... | DWOVAX::STARK | Knowledge is good. | Mon Jun 27 1994 14:47 | 19 |
| re: .16,
Yes, I agree with you that unconscious problem solving during
sleep or relaxation is possible support of the off-line model.
An important question that poses itself in the off-line model
is whether the solution of the problem requires _remembering_ the dream, or
whether the dream symbolism is just shorthand for the already completed
processing, and that the solution would be available to us later whether
we were later cognizant of the dream or not.
That's a big question when we think of how the off-line model relates
to the Freudian model of dreams, or to the Aboriginal view, or that
attributed to the Senoi, or Tibetan Buddhists, or other cultures
considered to value the remembrance of dreams to an extraordinary degree.
kind regards,
todd
|
| 1965.18 | I think we can learn in dreams! | ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL | | Mon Jun 27 1994 20:11 | 21 |
| Re: -1
When you mention whether the solution of the problem requires
remembering the dream...
When I was in high school I was studying French very seriously. I was
going to be going to Paris and wanted to be fluent. I began to make
tapes and listen to them before I slept at night. Before I knew it I
was dreaming in French and when I remembered my dreams, I understood
them.
I became more fluent and when I went to Paris I had no trouble
conversing with the French (except in Paris they didn't like Americans
trying to "ruin" their language...)
;^)
So I think that there is something to learning in dreaming, but as for
whether or not we have to remember...I wouldn't guess so...
|
| 1965.19 | Dr. Moody from Many Hands Magazine | ADVLSI::SHUMAKER | | Wed Jul 06 1994 09:34 | 253 |
| Interview in 'Many Hands' magazine with Dr. Raymond Moody on "Reunions:
Visionary Encounters with Departed Loved Ones." Copied without permission.
MH: Your research ranges over several different topics but seems to
have a focal point in death and dying. Let's start with your first
book, "Life after Life." What originally sparked your interest in near
death experiences (NDE's)?
RM: Well, actually my work does *not* necessarily revolve around death
and dying. I can see why people see it otherwise, but I am most
interested in human consciousness and altered states of awareness.
Within that category, people really get fascinated by near-death
experiences. Sometimes as a result, the interests I have in altered
states of awareness generally don't get that much attention. For
example, I'm also very much interested in the psychology of the humor
and the more exotic psychiatric syndromes - the really odd things like
when people claim all their relatives have been replaced by exact
duplicates, or the one where people have the delusion that a movie star
is in love with them. So what I'm really most interested in are the far
reaches of human consciousness, but I'm willing to talk about whatever
people want me to talk about.
I had grown up a non-religious person; it wasn't until I was about 12
that we started to go to church with some regularity. I had just grown
up assuming that when you die, there's an obliteration of
consciousness. Then in 1965, when I was an undergraduate student at the
University of Virginia studying philosophy, one of my professors told
me about a psychiatrist in town who had had an amazing experience with
death.
Several years before, he had been pronounced dead from double pneumonia
and had an NDE. The interesting thing to me was that even beyond the
point where the physicians say you're dead there's an active
consciousness going on. So I became very interested. Four years later
by coincidence I ran into another case. I realized that if I had come
across two cases in four years, without even seeking them out, this
experience had to be fairly common. By the time I went through medical
school I had more cases. When I heard that a patient had been
resuscitated I would go and talk to them.
MH: Your most recent book "Reunions" stretches the farthest parameters
of credibility by claiming that we can actually invite an apparition to
appear by staring into a mirror. Do people really see the dead?
RM: Well, first I want to tell you that so far nine other psychologist
and psychotherapists have worked with me and gotten the same results.
Diane Arcangel is one of them (see sidebar). She read an article I had
written for Near Death Journal, got interested in it, and came to my
place in Alabama in late July. She has had spectacular success with it.
MH: What is a psychomanteum and how is it used?
RM: In the ancient world a psychomanteum was a place where people
allegedly went to visit with the spirits of their departed relatives.
They are mentioned by Herodotus, who was the first historian of the
western world; also by Strabo, the first geographer; by Homer in the
"Odyssey;" and Plutarch who talks about the Oracle of the Dead. Since
the descriptions of what happened at the Oracle are so unbelievable,
scholars had always said they had to result from fraud or that they
were entirely literary creations. They assumed Homer merely wanted to
take us on a startling adventure. That's where it rested for about 2000
years.
MH: so you decided to construct one?
RM: I had heard about the Oracle of the Dead for many years. About
three years ago, I was sitting in my office just thinking. We in
medicine have known that a high percentage of bereaved people will have
experiences of being in touch with the departed. This just happens all
the time. And there have been several medical studies including the
"British Journal of Medicine" that show very clearly that this is true.
This journal, as well as one in the U.S., also suggests that two-thirds
of widows have this experience. Similar studies have been done at the
Chicago Institute of Public Opinion and the Gallop Poll. Widows have
been used as subjects because they comprise the largest bereaved group
and they are more available for study, but what we know from clinical
experience is that this is also true of other bereaved groups.
Siblings, parents, children and friends of the deceased also talk about
these experiences. The reason science has remained silent on them is
because it has been assumed that we can not reproduce them at a given
time and place.
As I was sitting around thinking about this, I realized that if so many
people have these experiences, we must be highly predisposed to them. I
asked myself why we couldn't rearrange circumstances to increase the
likelihood that a given person would have this experience at a given
time and place so that we could monitor it. If we could, that would
obviate a major scientific difficulty in studying experiences like
these. First, since we assume that these experiences are simultaneous
and only happen unpredictably, we can't be there on the spot with EEGs
to monitor them while a person is going through them. Secondly it
follows that there is always a time lag between when the experience
occurs and the time it's reported to an investigator. In that time
interval, the experience could be subconsciously distorted or altered
by the memory.
Herodotus named the river the Oracle of the Dead was located on. I
looked it up in a book published in 1964 by H. W. Parks, the standard
scholar on the Greek Oracle, and it turned out that the actual Oracle
had been rediscovered in 1957 by a Greek classical archaeologist. This
man had simply trusted Homer. He went to the location Homer described
and found a huge subterranean complex with corridors, dormitories, and
a winding labyrinth at the exact spot.
All of this was under the ground and appeared to be in utter black
darkness. As the archaeologist wound his way through the central part of
it, he came to the remnants of an enormous bronze caldron. He concluded
that in all probability the guards would pretend to be the spirits of
the departed that the seekers had come to see. With all due respect to
this particular archaeologist, I thought of a different possibility.
I had found with my work in mirrorgazing over a considerable length of
time, that highly-polished cauldrons, metal bowls and metal cups filled
with water or wine, have been used throughout history to provide an
optical clear depth. This has been a way of gazing at an infinite
distance. The example that we've all read about is Joseph in the
"Bible" who had among his possessions a silver cup which he used as a
divination tool. They still do this today in the Middle East. It hit me
like a ton of bricks that that's what the Greeks were doing.
So I set it up in a chamber in my house that provided an optical clear
depth and called about ten of my graduate students in psychology -
older people who had been out in the field for a while, and whom I
regard as a little more mature and polished. I described the project
to them. We got started and immediately we just started having results
far beyond what I could imagine.
MH: Do you stare right into the mirror at your own image?
RM: No. I mount my mirror 32 inches off the floor. I have an easy chair
so that when you sit in the chair you do not see your own reflection.
you're gazing at an upward angle and all you see is a clear optical
depth; you do not see your own reflection.
MH: Again I have to ask you if you literally see an apparition or do you
see something in your mind's eye. I know that you're not trying to
prove the existence of anything, but what, for example, was your
experience? Can you reach out and touch what you're seeing?
RM: As a matter of fact, a number of our subjects have reported being
hugged and touched. And here's another really wild thing about this. It
was totally unanticipated. Four, about 10 to 15 percent of my subjects,
the apparition appears first in the depth of the mirror, but then it
emerges from the mirror and comes right out into the room with them. At
this point, I think about the story of Aladdin, not the children's
version which has been expurgated, but the Arabian Knights original.
What you'll find is that the lamp is made out of brass. Aladdin and his
mother decide they're going to sell the lamp for money so Aladdin's
mother takes fine sand and polishes it. What she's doing is making a
mirror with the abrasive. Then they see the genie in the depths of the
lamp and he comes out of the mirror and talks to them in an audible
voice. No doubt about it. That happens a lot. It happened to me.
MH: Can other people see the apparition?
RM: Yes indeed. We've had a number of collective accounts at this
point.
MH: You saw your grandmother, someone you weren't expecting to see. Why
do you think that happened?
RM: Well 25% of the people who have been through it here have seen
someone other than the person they set out to see. I imagine that
happens because for some intrapsychic reason, you will see the person
you *need* to see, not the person you may *want* to see - perhaps to
smooth over that relationship, finish the unfinished business or
receive some communication that you need to hear.
MH: Now, just to go back for a second, as you're looking into the mirror
or whatever you're using for this purpose, what is your mental state?
Is it one of those things where if you try too hard. I won't happen?
RM: I have found that it is. The most common reason that people don't
have one of these experiences is that when people are really focused
and go in with a lot of expectations, really trying to force it, it
doesn't work. I try to subvert that by getting people to relax first.
MH: How?
RM: Basically by telling them to sit back and get into as relaxed a
state as they can.
MH: does hypnosis work?
RM: Hypnosis seems to work pretty well, but you know, so does a good
walk. It's my impression that when I take people for a walk in the
countryside first, that seems to enhance the experience.
With regard to the experience in the psychomanteum, people will ask,
"is this hypnosis?" I will give you my considered opinion based on the
fact that I have been interested in hypnosis since 1972 and have
hypnotized hundreds of people, and am an excellent hypnotic subject
myself. Whatever this was in the psychomanteum was different than
hypnosis or anything else I have experienced. so it's my opinion that
the images you get from mirrorgazing are distinct from the kind of
phenomena that are reported from hypnosis. Hypnosis itself is not
clearly defined. It deals with not one, but a number of different
levels of altered consciousness.
MH: Were you startled when you saw the apparition? Were you surprised
when you actually saw someone?
RM: Oh, yes! It was quite astonishing. It was one of the most amazing
events of my life. And the thing that was most astonishing to me about
it was that even though I had heard hundreds of accounts of apparitions
from people who would come up to me after my lectures over the years. I
still could hardly believe it myself. My image of an apparition was a
wispy, see-through thing and I imagined actually seeing one was a very
weird experience. But my grandmother looked completely solid and I
heard her audible voice quite loudly. I was fully awake. I was more
awake than in normal waking reality and it did not seem weird.
MH: Does it have to be dark to do this? Can it be done during the day?
RM: Well, dark helps simply because you get a better image. The more
light you can exclude the better.
MH: I know that one of the reasons you wanted to do this was because of
the transformational value of NDE's. Do you find that people achieve
the same peaceful transformation through reunions with the deceased?
RM: I believe so. I certainly did. It was a highlight of my life. It
changed my view of reality.
MH: Does it change your fear of death?
RM: I don't know. In my case, I have not been afraid of death for a long
time so I can't really say what it would be like for other people. I'm
basically a person who likes to plow up new stuff. That's what I enjoy
doing, so I'm already moving on to something else at this point.
MH: As a pioneer in the frontier sciences, someone right there on the
front lines, do you think progress is being made in understanding the
paranormal?
RM: Yes, we are going to see some changes, I'm fully confident. I'm not
a biblical doomsday kind of person - that's not what I'm about. As I
look at the world situation, it's plain to me that everything is coming
to a head. There is going to be a major change and whether these
altered states of consciousness will have anything to do with it, well
it's my suspicion that they will.
MH: Let's hope they do.
RM: Havel spoke to Congress several years ago and it's amazing to me
that his speech was not more widely appreciated in the US. He made the
remark that as he surveyed the world, it struck him that if we are to
be saved the only thing that's going to do it is what he calls a
worldwide revolution in consciousness. So we have to open up to
other levels of consciousness if we are to survive in my opinion,
because it seems to me that if we are to be saved, we have to start
loving each other. How are you going to do that? Well, it may take a
mystical consciousness to do it. It's the best way I can see.
|
| 1965.20 | :) | TECRUS::DEMARSE | Enjoy being | Thu Jul 07 1994 14:17 | 1 |
| Great article!
|
| 1965.21 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Jul 07 1994 15:41 | 6 |
|
Indeed! Thanks, Wayne.
Especially liked the reference to Aladdin and mirrors.
Cindy
|
| 1965.22 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Jul 07 1994 18:16 | 72 |
|
Here is a repost of a note that was deleted (by the author, so I
removed his name and kept the text.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1638.9 Dreams and voices. 9 of 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seven bodies and each has its own type of dream:
1] the physical, 2] the etheric, 3] the astral, 4] the mental,
5] the spiritual, 6] the cosmic, 7] the nirvanic.
1:
99% of our thousands of daily/nightly dreams are just garbage. the
"cache" gets flushed. the brain cells are cleared of trivia.
2:
In the second, the etheric, one can travel. (flying, obe)
gurus revealing themselves before their disciples is nothing but
etheric travel. it is called the vital body, the energy body.
After a death, the etheric body will "usually" "stay around" the
earth plane for 13 days. (if it refuses to leave its attachment to
the world, it becomes a ghost. that is why the body is cremeated:
to shock the etheric soul.)
If the dreamer is in the etheric body, then those recently departed,
or those who wish to be here to deliver a message, will be heard.
Sufis have used perfume and colour to enter the second body.
3:
In the third, astral, you go into your previous births.
4:
In the fourth, the mental, one can travel into the past and into the
future -- your own future only.
A person who is practicing fasting, loneliness, darkness, will create
mental dreams -- they will be so real, more real than the reality that
is surrounding us. the mind is totally creative -- unhindered by
anything objective, unhindered by material boundaries. all art is
produced in the fourth because the mind is so powerful, so crystal
clear.
5:
In the fifth, the spiritual, you cross the individual and time: you are
in eternity. the dreamer & the real become one. every type of duality
is cast off. there is no question of awareness now. even if you are
unaware, you will be aware of your unawareness.
6:
In the sixth body, the cosmic body, you cross the borders of
matter/mind, conscious/unconscious. if one dreams here, one will most
probably create great systems or great religions. you can't have any
beliefs, philosophy, scriptures, any gurus: you are totally alone;
not loneliness but aloneness.
You are no more. the dreamer is not. whatever is known, is KNOWN. it
becomes your knowledge. you are not, but the total is dreaming.
7:
In the seventh body, the nirvanic, the positive jumps into nothingness:
dreams of nonexistence, dreams of nothingness, dreams of the void.
there are no symbols, no forms. there is no sound, but the soundless.
there is absolute silence.
There is neither dream nor reality. dreams and reality have become one.
only nothingness remains. there is no possibility of dreaming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 1965.23 | have you tried mirror gazing??? | POWDML::RAMSAY | | Fri Jul 08 1994 12:40 | 3 |
| re .19 on mirror gazing
Has anyone tried this? I'd be interested in hearing about it.
|
| 1965.24 | | WMOIS::CONNELL | I will do thee mischief in the wood. | Fri Jul 08 1994 13:04 | 18 |
| I own what is called a "Dark Mirror" and have attempted some gazing
with it. I usually use a candle off to one side for light. It isn't
actually close enough to see it in the mirror (the candle) as the
mirror is of a size to hold in one's hand and the candle to close might
singe my hair a bit. :-) The candle is not the focus, my eyes are. I
haven't attempted this to often for a couple of reasons. The only
images I've seen are dark, flittering shadow forms, not necessarily
demonic or anything, just that I can't get them any clearer. I get the
same effect from staring into a clear night sky without any moon. I may
just be concentrating to hard and if I try to relax to much, I actually
come close to falling asleep. :-) The other reason is that I have a
slightly irrational, but not dysfunctional fear of mirrors and tend to
not look into them. :-) I won't go into the why's of this here. I've
always suspected that it was C. L Dodgsons' fault anyway. :-)
Bright Blessings
PJ
|
| 1965.25 | | POWDML::RAMSAY | | Fri Jul 08 1994 14:35 | 1 |
| Thanks, PJ. Anyone else???
|