Conference hydra::dejavu

  As a rule, things that really "belong" to a person are reputed to pick
up some sort of influence from them.  Some sensitives say they become
"attuned."  In some primitive societies, this is why many people make sure
that if they are getting rid of something (say, old clothes) that whatever
it is gets totally destroyed so that (the equivalent of) a black magician
cannot get his or her hands on it.  (Failure to do so would enable the
malevolent one to use it in something on the order of a "voodoo doll.")  
There appears to be some sort of psychic linkage.
  To a sensitive (as some psychic readers are), the attunement is rather
on the order of the psychic equivanent of a fingerprint (or perhaps a
crude form of holograph).  A lot of information can be pulled out of such
an object.
  It is for this reason that some sacred relics are said to be holy.
  Also, it's for this reason that some ritualists insist on "virgin" (nev-
erbefore used) material, such as parchment.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

		Perhaps, Ray, when you were cleansed of the influences of this
	weird guy you met you were cleansed of the same stuff that envelopes
	everything he owns.  So that you like his ring or key chain also had
	his aura enveloping you.

		From what Steve says and what you say it seems like there is 
	some sort of psychic comm line set up directly to the person who 
	influenced the article.  Or maybe instead of a comm line it's a
	hardwired line where you can not only read it but in a black magic
	sense a person could downline load you to do what he wants through this
	psychic connection.

		It can get rather frightening to think that you could leave
	yourself so wide open to control by others in such a subtle way.

							Jorge'

Re .2:

>		From what Steve says and what you say it seems like there is
>	some sort of psychic comm line set up directly to the person who
>	influenced the article.  Or maybe instead of a comm line it's a
>	hardwired line where you can not only read it but in a black magic
>	sense a person could downline load you to do what he wants through this
>	psychic connection.

That's a good model, but it doesn't quite explain things.  The trouble with
magical theory is that there are multiple _working_ models, but nothing
absolute.  The mechanism in question comes from what's called the Law of
Contagion, from the principles of Sympathetic Magic.

Briefly, the Law of Contagion says, approximately, that if something once was
a part of (or "belonged to") something [else] or somebody, it _remains_ a part,
no matter how much difference separates the object and what it came from.

Thus, the "Voodoo" doll (or "poppet") is tuned to the subject by the inclusion
of something personal such as hair, nail parings, spittle, or blood.

The mechanism is more like a _potential_ circuit that can't be used without
being activated (rather like an AND gate).  A sensitive has the ability to
read from it (only); a "magician" (not the stage type) can send influences
through the "circuit," though only at the cost of a lot of energy (the Laws
of Thermodynamics apparently also work in the magical area).  Poppets and
such need not be used for evil (some are used for healing), but if you're
rubbing elbows with those who you have reason to believe have the Talent and 
training to practice magic, it's probably a good idea to be somewhat cautious
if he or she wants a lock of hair or a "souvenir" or "remberence" consisting
of some personal object of yours.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    The ability to pick up on the vibrations of someone on an object touched
by that person is known as psychometry (sp).   We are all madeup of vib-
rations that stem from the original vibration (God) and these Vibs intermix
with the vibrations of other objects a leave an imprint like a finger print.
People who are sensitive to this can pick up on these vibrations and give
information related to same.  

    When one feels good or bad vibrations from someone it is generally after
the two people in questions enter eachothers Auric fields.   At least that is
the way it is with me.   How many times have you been in a room when someone 
walks in and you feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end.  This
is your auric field mixing with theres and your subconcious mind making an
analysis of the person/s.


steve

I've experienced this with people and also with buildings. I find that 
my feelings about people seem to be valid for me, others do not seem to 
find some people "objectionable" and experience no problems with these 
people. Last year I bought my first house, naturally I was looking at 
older houses here in Maine, I was amazed at how much I was able to pick 
up from the houses. I turned down several that were "perfect" because 
they didn't feel right. The house I finally bought, I liked before I 
even entered it, after viewing the house I had to have it even though it 
was not as good as some of the others I looked at, but it was an old 
parsonage for a small church, the vibes were very good. I am happy to 
say that the house seems to be working out. I think we like each other.

dave

Several years ago my wife and I had a similar experience when we bought
an 1875 house in Epping, N.H.  We had looked at three other houses that
day and when we got out of the car in the driveway of this one, we both
unknown to the other at the time felt "this is it!" quite strongly.  As
she later told me when she walked through the house my wife's feeling
grew very strong, and mine was reinforced by such practical matters as
finding that it was structurally sound -- but was also reinforced as I
walked through.   The house has been very good to us.

				Bill

This is a little different, though related to what we've been talking about.
A dwelling can become something equivalent to a cavity resonator, tuned to
the personalities involved.  This is why a new house often doesn't appear
to have a "personality," as an older house will.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	    I recall seeing Kirlian photographs of things that have had
	a part removed from them, yet an aura still exists where that
	part was.  This was true of inanimate objects as well as organic
	ones.
	    (Perhaps we could start a new note on Kirlian photography.)
			<_Jym_>

    One interesting caution about interpreting vibes from another 
    person.  When I meet someone who irritates me, or who makes my
    hair stand up, or generates some other instinctive reaction, I've
    learned to look inward for the cause first.  It is probably true
    that they are giving off something, but it is something within me
    that is reacting to it.  Usually what I've reacted to is the fact
    that what I sense from them is something inside myself that I don't
    want to acknowledge, or feel uncomfortable with.  Most people I've
    had bad vibes with have not been bad people, but the interaction
    between us has been.  And that, I have to admit, is often as much
    my fault as theirs.
    
    This is not to discount others' experiences, but to mention that
    two people are involved in any interaction, and it can be difficult
    sorting out what you vs. what the other person is contributing.
    
    Marcia

    It's surely no longer a surprise to any of us that we can usually
    tell 'who's who & what's what' (almost immediately). I believe it's
    often really a matter of sorting the impression out from the automatic
    override that causes a delay in rectification. Many of us were raised
    -- or raised our children -- to overcompensate for this strenuously.
    (Certainly my children were in the Broookline MA public schools).
    A complicator is the counter/projection phenomenon: where we are
    registering a projection & trying to rectify it: a double variable.
    There, registering the base is hardest. The intensity of projection
    is a mirroring or blow-back secondary phenomenon. Complexification,
    not misregistration, necessarily. Anybody care to sort/verify?
    
    -Boleslaw

    But have you also ever heard the phrase "(s)he grows on you"?
    
    I do not make good first impressions.  I have lost count at this
    point of people who have approached me after knowing me (sometimes
    for years) to apologise for their initial, internal condemnations
    of me.  It has been a common occurrence of my life to have people
    tell me how cruel/aloof/overbearing/sick/stupid/unenlightened/etc.
    they first perceived me to be, and to have revised that opinion
    on continued interaction which revealed other qualities to them
    or showed them how they had misinterpreted the first impression.
    
    After a couple of those kinds of experiences I began to practice 
    a mindset that allowed that even if my initial reaction to someone 
    was quite definite in some way that I must reserve judgement until 
    I had time to observe him/her further.  At least 75% of the time I 
    have revised my opinions of people because further observation gave 
    the lie to my initial reaction.  And as to answering why I had 
    the reaction in the first place, the answer in those 75 out of 100 
    cases I was humbled to discover that something in the other person 
    reminded me of something in me.
    
    Perhaps many/most of us possess a faculty that allows our first
    reactions/opinions about others to be correct.  But I don't possess
    it, and when others react to me on first sight their normally accurate 
    radar seems to go awry also.  I wonder . . .
    
    Marcia

re: .11
    
>    I do not make good first impressions. 

Not true!  (at least in my limited experience (2 gatherings)...:-))

    
    Yes, it IS their problem!
    
    Anybody who judges another person without getting to know them first
    is doing everyone a grave disservice.
    
    I gave my first Toastmasters 'Icebreaker' speech yesterday and the
    title was "Never Judge a Book By It's Cover".  After presenting
    the 'generic stuff' (how long at DEC, what I did, etc.), I spoke
    about some things that most people upon first meeting me have
    said "No, I just can't picture you doing that.".  Managed to get
    a lot of stares of disbelief and some laughing too!
    
    This point was driven home for me most recently when I discovered
    after working with a 'now' friend of mine for 5 years that he had 
    lived in South Africa for a portion of his life.  
          
    
    (stop here for a moment.....)
    
    
    Question - how many of you would have assumed that he supported 
               apartheid?
     
    
    My guess would be that none of you would automatically assume this
    just because this seems to be a very open-minded accepting group.
    
    
    HOWEVER...
    
    
    My friend felt compelled to immediately state his (opposing) view
    of apartheid right after he spoke the words 'South Africa'. 
                                             
    And that made me very sad that he felt he had to state that, first
    of all because I thought he knew me better than that, and also 
    because even though I do not think this way (and told him this), 
    there are many, many people who do.
    
    The human race as a whole still has a long way to go in terms of
    accepting (even tolerating) differences, in my opinion, but at least 
    there are conferences like this which promote equality and do not 
    tread on or unduly criticize other people's beliefs.      
    
    Cindy

    Cindy: (re .13)
    
    You have touched upon a key issue in my own perception of why I
    was put here in the first place.  Some key concepts we are mandated
    to learn [if you will] are compassion and empathy.  If we refuse
    to learn them, we subvert the Plan; if we go along and attempt to
    do the best at learning that we can, we begin to fulfill that which
    we were put here for.
    
    I hope you contact me via E-Mail to discuss this further; or we
    could continue via notes if you prefer.
    
    Ray

    
    Ray,
    
    That was over a year ago!  But it does still apply.
    
    Discussing it here is fine.  
    
    Cindy