Conference hydra::dejavu

The Eastern philosphy, Kashmir Shaivism, expresses the belief
that God is everywhere and in everything, and that everything
consists of consciousness.  Now, if this consciousness permeates
everything, including vacuum, then vibrations (another
manifestation of consciousness) have a medium to travel through.

This is my thought on how clairavoyance takes place.  It's all
God sending God a message through God.  The vibrations are there,
"all" you have to do is pick them up.  Certainly not an every day
experience for most of us, but neither is clairavoyance. 

Therefore.....it must be true :- ). 

Precognition is not an exact science.  Things can change before
they happen (how's that for a sentence?).  Precognition is just
seeing what will *probably* happen.  The future is taking place
as time goes on and *these* vibrations are out there for the
receiving.

Once you learn how to manipulate this medium, anything is
possible.  You might even think of this medium as "The Force". 
Fortunately, people who receive this complete knowledge do so 
because they have come to know themselves completely and hence
understand fully the workings of Karma.  Usually they regard
these *powers* as being no more exciting or interesting than 
being able to manipulate a rubber ball.  It's just another
distraction.

Any other theories?

Tom

  My vote goes for the "laws undiscovered in consonance with known laws in
transition" (How's that for a sentence!).  I feel at this period in time that
we are discovering energies and laws that are less *forceful* or *powerful* in
nature.  This dosen't mean they are less useful or have less impact.  Here's
an example... I can't move a house or building with my consiousness.  I can move
through it with no problem when in the right state of mind.
  Extended or normal states of consiousness take up little space and have very
little mass.  It may just very well be that we are learning to use forces and
energies that are yet to be discovered or have been mis-understood.  Physists
are now running into unnammed "weak forces" and other such items.  Just last 
week it was announced that a new force was found that invalidated Gallieo's
demonstration of two items of different mass reaching the ground at the
*exact* same instant.  The difference in time was very, very small but different
none the less.
  As I see it *The Farce* is indeed alive and well.  Only we can't manipulate
the stronger forces by will alone.  I think we can manipulate the weaker forces
when in the right frame of mind though.

Mikie, Co. Sp.

	I'm glad to see that you have brought this back into the spotlight,
Steve.  I vote firmly for your first proposal of laws not yet discovered.
our level of understanding is based on what we have learned and since we are
continuing to learn we must be open minded to discovery.

	In mathematics there is a need to create extra dimensions in order to
explain some of the natural phenomena in our universe and in support of this
possibility I think we may find the explanation for a lot of what has been
unexplainable.  For example there is the "flatland" analogy where if viewing
in two dimensions only one where to introduce a three dimensional bouncing
ball all you would see would be a spot blinking on and off but in three 
(maybe I should say four, time)-D  you would see the ball.  Perhaps in a
multiple dimensional reality it is our limited senses which block our
understanding.  This is just another guess!

						Jorge'

Did he prove it mathematicaly?

		Fred

	
	It all depends whether you want to accumulate your knowledge in a 
	building block manner or you want to work it backwards and start
	at the level of the phenomena and rationalize it into a workable
	explanation.  I think using these psychic powers to our benefit
	is the bottomline so what ever works for you is best.

	In a bigger sense than the use of these powers to our benefit is
	the fact that we will become even more intimate with the true order
	of nature and our role in it.

						Jorge'

Re .4 on:

Whether science ever tells us "everything" (which is not its purpose), it has
been designed to do two things: increase our basic understanding of our
surroundings, and organize acquired knowledge in such a way that we can
extend our working understanding of things from the particular to the
general.  though not "occult," an example:

Sir Isaac Newton did _not_ "discover gravity."  It would be stupid to
think that people didn't know the effects of gravity on or near the surface
of the earth before him (in fact Galileo systematically studied the accelera-
tion effects of gravity long before Newton): the picture of Newton being
hit on the head wirth an apple and saying the equivalent of, "Aha!  There's
something I'll call `gravity' that makes things go down!" is silly.  What he
did was to intuit that the same force that made the apple fall (without hit-
ting him, by the way) made the moon orbit the earth and pervades all space.
He then developed a mathematical model to which he compared the observed
(gross) motions of satellites, and from that came up with a _universal_ Law
of Gravitation that has stood the test of time [even the reletavistic models
don't invalidate Newton, they just throw in additional aspects].

If we're looking for a new law to explain _and enable us better to use_ a
previously unexplained phenomenon such as telepathy, and if it's consistent
with other laws we're alrerady familiar with, then whather the knowledge we
have is interim (as Galilean gravity) or permanent (such as Archimedean
hydrostatics) isn't as important as is our ability to qualntify and exploit
systematically something we haven't been able to before.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

If you've read C. G. Jung's and Wolfgang Pauli's "Synchronicity, An Acausal
Connecting Principle," you'll know just how hard it is to characterize these
effects.  Law or miracle?  If by law you mean a causal relationship between
synchronistic events, Jung denies that.  For instance, suppose I pick up
the phone to call you, and you're on the other end of the line, having just
dialed me.  Jung would, I think, deny that my intention to call you >>caused<<
you to call me up, that I clairvoyantly sensed your act of dialing and
picked up the receiver, or that you had a precognitive vision of me on the
phone and therefore called me.  Yet acausal correlations between facts are
often used scientifically as suggestive hints of as yet unseen forces, laws,
or agencies.  In Jung's thinking, these agencies are of a psychological/
instinctual/spiritual nature, archetypes occupying a timeless, spaceless
universe he calls the collective unconscious.  Although aspects of mind,
and according to Jung the basis of consciousness itself, the archetypes
are transpersonal in nature, and may have effects in causally unconnected
events, the utterly convincing coincidences many of us have had.

What becomes extremely difficult is establishing synchronicity on a scientific
basis.  Synchronicities are always anecdotal, never statistical - or almost
never.  Jung devoted a long, unconvincing passage in "Synchronicity" to his
failed attempt to generate statistical evidence of synchronicity via experiment.
The tantalizing and frustrating thing about such experiences is that they
seem utterly convincing to those involved, yet are inimical to statistical
treatment.  (Everyone has a couple of pet exceptions to this rule: mine are
Gauquelin's work on astrology, which though skeptical, reported a small
residue of statistically significant correlations of planetary aspects with
career taken; and Puthoff and Targ's work characterizing remote viewing as
an information channel.)

But suppose that synchronicities, by virtue of their nature, disappear "in the
large," average out?  Does this necessarily mean they're meaningless?  Ought
we not take our instincts about these events more seriously than that?  If
we follow this line of thought, >>scientific<< progress is impossible until
the methodological and philosophical underpinnings of science are refined
(without doing violence to the body of existing scientific knowledge).  That's
a tall order - even a sophisticated thinker like Jung kept returning to
quantifiable evidence to demonstrate his claims.

Doug

	The inspiration and motivation behind science often comes from these
feelings that "I know it's true I just can't prove it!" comes from.

						Jorge'

    Think of psi or psionics operating on a noisy data channel, one
    with a dreadful signal to noise ratio.
    							Ann B.

    This is a sort of cross-reference to another note, in which Steve
    Kallis mentioned that the Laws of Thermodynamics seemed, in his
    observation, to also apply to the practice of magic.  Under the
    assumption that many psychic phenomena operate under laws that just
    aren't known yet, I found that an interesting comment.  How _do_
    the Laws of Thermodynamics appear to manifest in magical work?
    
    Marcia

    Re .11:
    
    I can think of one right off the bat.  The laws of thermodynamics
    state that you can't achieve a net energy gain in a closed system
    (that is, you can't get anything for nothing, also called "There
    ain't no such thing as a free lunch," aka TANSTAAFL).  The same
    should hold true in psychic things: to obtain anything, you have
    to put at least as much into what you're doing as you expect to
    get out of it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I would imagine, though, that just as with other things, there
    are apparent violations of TANSTAAFL: a person who exerted a
    small force at the right "place" could produce a disproportionate
    effect, even though once you drew a big enough line around the
    system you could still claim that it all summed to zero.
    And on the other hand, no amount of effort will produce
    results if the energy is applied incorrectly.
    
    I affirm this only partly on the basis of analogy.  I think that
    many forms of ceremonial magic don't "work", or have dubious
    effects, because they are simply too far at odds with the
    structure in which they are attempted.
    
    Pat
    

    	Here's the deal...those people who are not satisfied until they
    have some kind of 'rational' explanation for things are welcome
    to ask specific questions under this (I think) appropriate topic.
    Those people who have something of an explanation are welcome to
    try and satisfy the skeptics, and the skeptics are welcome to rephrase
    and try again.
    
    	I think this is far preferable to harping on mechanisms in the
    majority of other topics. I'm not saying anyone is doing that, but
    I do think that enough of a hub-bub has been raised in enough places
    that newcomers and some of the old-faithfuls might become gunshy
    about putting out experiences that they can't clearly explain. They
    shouldn't feel obligated to over-authenticate (prove, validate,
    whatever) what they are saying. It's hard enough just to REMEMBER
    these things as they truly happened. 
    
    	The whole reason why most of us are here is because we DON'T
    understand how these things work. We are here to work at understanding,
    and help each other as much as our limited experience can. Part of this
    help is coming up with ideas on mechanisms, which is why I brought you
    all here. Have at it. 
    
    	Ed