Conference hydra::dejavu

                <<< KRYSTL::DAA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 173.2                      Psychic defined                           2 of 2
FRSBEE::CHRISTENSEN                                  21 lines  24-JUL-1986 12:32
                                  -< harmony >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It seems like the have vs. have-not condition of humanity.
    
    My father would only play cards with friends, he rarely lost.
    Most people I meet are fearful of someone who can "read minds".
    I have been rebuffed for sensing a person's anger or upset.
    
    I think as long as psychic is a talent or ability that is considered
    in short supply, then the general public is going to hold it as
    a threat.
    
    Also living harmoniously with my fellow man means not upsetting
    him, not taunting his ignorance, not being so arrogant that
    he will reject the seeds of his own "sixth sense".  The community
    of this notes file and the opportunity it represents more than
    justifies its exsistance.
    
    keep on keep'n on.......
    
    
    larry
    

                <<< KRYSTL::DAA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 173.1                      Psychic defined                           1 of 2
INK::KALLIS                                          24 lines  23-JUL-1986 13:43
                       -< The Trouble With Definitions >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Psychic," is, alas, a very flexible phrase, not unlike "science
    fiction."  To some, it means the "nearly respectible" phenomena,
    like parapsychology; others lump in Fortean stuff (strange phenomena,
    disappearances,  sasquatches, etc.); some include magic and/or
    witchcraft; some include miraculous aspects of "mainstream" religions;
    some include spiritualism.
    
    In short, it's something of a catchphrase.
    
    A spiritualist might, for instance, look at an astrologer and say,
    "You'd have to be awfully silly to believe _that_ stuff; what I'm
    doing, however, is important and vital. "  The astrologer could
    look at the spiritualist, however, and say exactly the same!
    
    On an allied matter, there are many who think anything "psychic"
    is somehow evil and associated with the Devil.  So even trying to
    explain some things is occasionally difficult (a neighbor of mine,
    when the subject of Tasrot cards was brought up -- not by me --
    said, "I read in a book about the Bible that astrology and Tarot
    are evil and you're putting your soul in jeopardy by having a reading."
    Given _that_, it's hard to talk enlighteningly about the subject.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

<"psychic" is, alas, a very flexible phrase.....

An interesting point but a little "old school".  When we start respecting
individuals and valuing their differences we may begin to see the similarities
between them and ourselves - rather than their differences.  I disagree with
the comment that "it's something of a catchphase".  The sixth sense functions
under the same principles as any other sense.  Those who have sight see visual
images; how they interpret them depends on their sphere of reference and it
is a judgement call on their interpretation rather than a question of using
that particular "physical" sense.

Some folks utilize Tarot cards and crystals etc. to access this sense, others
don't need these kinds of tools.  Because we don't always agree with their
interpretation of the energy they access doesn't mean they are not using their
sixth sense. Perhaps we need to start at an more basic level and educate
others in the difference between the sixth Sense/Psychic ability vs.
interpretation of the data received through that particular sense.

How we focus on subjects like this is up for grabs.  I opt for finding a
positive balance.  Perhaps we can start addressing these ideas from a 
neutral point rather than instantly polarizing them!


< ......astrology and tarot are evil and you're putting your soul in jeopardy...

It seems obvious this individual is contracted and fearful - and using 
terminology and concepts which are so far removed from his sphere of reference
only adds fuel to the fear - I don't think that means he's a 'hopeless'
case and will never understand these concepts. You just start at the point
he/they can understand.  No one said reeducation was easy! It's been proven many
times that every being recognizes kindness and love when given unconditionally,
even when they don't or can't acknowledge it.  They do get it on some level.


Lora

    Re .3:
    
    Most respectfully, you're falling into ther Colin Wilson trap. 
    In his _The Occult_ and later _Mysteries_ books, he talks on and
    on about his "faculty X," which apparently corresponds to your "sixth
    sense."
    
    [As an exercise, how many senses _do_ normal humans have?  Well,
    there's touch, sight, smell, taste, hearing, temperature, balance,
    kinesthetic, and so-called pure body senses such as hunger, thirst,
    etc. Lots more than six, anyway...]
    
    If you define _all_ "psychic phenomena" as part of a single "sixth
    sense," "faculty X," or whatever, you're asking us to comment within
    the confines of a model you've set up.  Suppose someone was able
    conclusively to demonstrate that, say, levitation was a form of
    controlled electron spin resonance and that dowsing was an aspect
    of capacitance alteration picked up through nerves.  Thast would
    be two separate paranormal abilities with different mechanisms.
    
    I'm not willing to set all my eggs in any one basket until I'm sure
    the basket is sturdy enough...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re: .4

All properties - tangible and intangible brake down to the electromagnetic 
field anyway.  

The quotes and information that you give from BOOKS is impressive.  
Processing from the head as you do [infrequent that I've seen otherwise] it  
seems that you are missing the point.  It appears to me that what is 
being discussed is accessing information in a non-physical way.

Books are very helpful in many situations but if there is no Heartfelt 
awareness...  coming from the gut/heart... feeling level...* there is something
missing.  I know we can all access that* part of ourselves [some more than 
others].  If we choose to work that* way in this world there is a tremendous
amount of knowledge available.  You might want to try to step away from those 
books a little [less head/more heart] and enjoy this other level.

- Sandy

    <sigh>
    
    I don't think this should become a dialogue, but rather an open
    forum.
    
    I cited books -- why?  Because books are the easiest reasonable
    common source of reference for people scattered geographically.
     If you asked me something about, say, the history of the Pythoness
    of Delphi, I suppose I could rack my brains, sit down at one of
    these terminals and crasnk in reams of characters, or I could refer
    you to an already published book on the subject.
    
    There are several ways to achieve some degree of enlightenment.
     One is through self-exploration; however, it can't lead you beyond
    that already within you.  A second way is through mutual exploration
    with another or others; the result is the sum of your differences,
    if everything "takes."  A third is through a guide or mentor; that's
    good is you can find one.  The fourth is through accumulated knowledge,
    as in books.
    
    Let me get non-psychic for a moment:  any flight instructor will
    tell a student pilot to trust his or her instruments.  Sometimes
    a person's _internal senses_ can trick him or her: if you go by
    "feel" alone, for instance, it's easy in obscured conditions to
    go into a so-called "death spiral" where you think you're correcting
    for one ("by feel") problem where you're actually heading for a
    crash.
    
    The instruments are an _outside anchor_ or reference that keeps
    you from injuring yourself.
    
    So is accumulated knowledge.  As in books..
    
    Should books be _everything_?  No way!  But they are an excellent
    foundation from which to build your structure(s).
    
    Those who have met me will probably tell you that I don't rely on
    the authority of the written word alone.  But until you meeet me,
    Sandy, you can't know that; so please take my word on it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Well, how about I try this for starters?  Let me tell you about
    an actual experience and see if any of you think it fits into the
    psychic realm.  I have no doubt I'll get varied opinions, but I'd
    be interested to sift through them all.  (Perhaps this approach is
    worth a new note altogether.)  For those of you who think it's an
    indicator of psychic talent of some sort, tell me what talent and
    why you think that; those of you who think it's a physically explained
    thing, tell me what physical phenomenon and why you think so.
    
    <Enable Experience>
    
    Three years ago I took a course in polarity energy balancing.  This
    is one of those bodywork disciplines that holds that the therapist
    can adjust the balance of energy fields in the subtle bodies by
    contacting certains points one with another.  Since it purports
    to work on a more subtle level than direct physical or emotional,
    I suppose that medical science would say it's "not supposed to work,
    because the subtle bodies don't exist."
    
    And if that is true, I should not have been able to feel what I
    felt when working on the other students, which were strong sensations
    of heat and tingling in my hands when I made the correct contact
    points.  For those of you who would say that of course you'd feel
    heat if you touched another warm body, let me mention that the
    manipulations that gave me the strongest sensations were those where
    my hands *did not touch* the other person's physical body.
    
    I and *all* the other students in the class felt the same sensations.
    What were we feeling?  Is the ability to tactilely (sp?) experience
    energy in a body that supposedly doesn't exist (etheric, astral, 
    etc.) considered a manifestation of a form of psychic energy?  What
    kind?  If not psychic, then what is it that I feel when performing
    or receiving polarity energy balancing?  Any ideas?
    
    Marcia

    *************** RE.: This original note.****************
    
    I have been reading these notes for only a short time, but I decided
    to put my two cents worth in anyway. I had to apologize up front
    as it appears there are those out there that feel the need to decimaTE
    peoples replies just because........
    The world is so profoundly different out there for all of us how
    can any one individual say what is and what is not? You can only
    go by your own sphere of reference whether it be books or otherwise.
    
    The best bet as I see it is to open your mind to that which you
    seek or that which interests you and gain the most you possibly
    can by the following experiences. To sit in judgement because your
    experience or information is considered the ultimate is to close
    yourself off to that which you seek.
    
    To put it bluntly, if you don't have anything good to say, then
    keep it to yourself. Information is there for everyone, whether
    it be in books through experience or just plain old storytelling.
    
    Things become myths and legends because??  Anyone know???
    
    Thanks for your time!
    
    W-man.

RE: .9

I don't see why being a newcomer to DEJAVU would make your "two cents"
worth any less than anyone else.  Welcome!

However, I don't think that your criticism is just.  There are *very*
few notes in this file in which I think that someone is "sitting in
judgment" of someone else.  That, in itself, is a harsh judgment I would
say.

People have opinions, and, ultimately, that is all that they have.  Nothing
I or anyone else has *ever* said represents more than an opinion, unless
you believe that the speaker is infallible.

If you believe, based on your experience, that someone is committing an
error or is about to commit one, than frequently you are morally obligated
to tell them.  What you tell them, of course, is what your opinion is and
why you believe it to be true.  What they do with your opinion is their
own business.  Whether you are so obligated depends, on how sure you are
of your opinion, the likely consequences of the error, and whether you
think that there is any chance that they will listen.

To state that you disagree with someone, does *not* mean that you sit in
judgment of them.  It simply states that your opinion differs from theirs,
and that you wish to give them the opportunity to benefit from your
experience, if they can, as well as their own.

		Topher

PS: The preceding is, of course, simply my opinion -- I think.

RE: .8

First off I want to make something clear.  There is a lot of evidence which
suggests that psychic healing takes place, and cannot easily be explained
in terms accepted by modern science.  I would be *very* surprised if there
wasn't "something" to it.

The physical sensations frequently (though not always) described as attending
some forms of psychic healing are another matter, however.

I just don't know.

They may well be a direct perception of the actual psychic process.

They may be pure "suggestion" and of no real importance (personally I
doubt this, but I can't *prove* it's not so).

They may be an important subconscious device to help produce the desired
effect; to help marshal, for example, the proper sense of reality, or to
focus the attention where it needs to be.

They may be a purely physical side effect of the process that is occuring.
For example, most people, if they concentrate on their fingertips will
soon detect a slight (or for some people, more than slight) sensation of
warmth and/or a tingling (try it).  It used to be thought that this was
"just" suggestion.  It is now known that it is at least partially due to
increased circulation in the area concentrated on.  We don't know the
mechanism, but it is probably due to a combination of nerves and hormones
-- no more mysterious (and no less) than the ability to *move* our fingers
when we want to.

I don't know -- and it is probably not important to the healer which is
true.  But I would love to find out someday -- that's why I'm involved
with parapsychology.

	    Topher

re: 1

It appears that we've gotten off the subject here...
Seems to be a hot subject for everyone...   

The original note referenced the dictionary definition of Psychic.  If we 
use that as a basic assumption then we may be able to get back to sharing our
various experiences with each other... instead of whether it's real or not.

I personally receive information in many ways... Sometimes with the Tarot, 
through meditation or often and best the information is channeled through 
me... I'm often surprised at the intensity, accuracy and amount I receive.

With this information comes a great deal of responsibility.  

Also with this information you have to keep your EGO in check.  

Looking forward to hearing other people's experience.

- Sandy

    Sorry to be so flip but,
    
    And now for the rest of the "Never ending Story"!!!!
    
    W-man

    I find it as hard to use the word 'psychic' as I did the word
    'pig' in the '60s (although at my trial the 'cops' falsely accused 
    me of using it.) It's just not a Noun for me, or it's not what
    I like to use as a Noun. (Apologies for using it as a noun in the
    'Ronald Reagan & Psychics' conference which I had thought was
    intended as a silly joke & had to be proven anything but silly.)
    
    If anything, it's an adverbial adjective: a command/switch
    combination in computer terms: {Example}: psychic/surgeon;
    describing a surgeon who operates without surgical instruments.
              
    I always use the term 'percipient' as a purely personal habit;
    the term 'sensitive' is more widely used & is even better as
    both dissolve into common speech as modifiers that attract no
    wildly irrational attention. Can you imagine Pray-TV evangelists
    effectively attacking all 'sensitive' people as being Of Satan?
                
    One wo/man's 'psychic' is another wo/man's 'sensitive'; let's
    call the whole thing off (parodying a Cole Porter song in which
    'tomato, tamata; potato, patata' are the most memorable end-rhymes.)
                              
    Seriously, I would like to think what we are actually talking
    about is a person whose consciousness is both acute & 'direct'
    in its ability to 'apprehend' various 'phenomena' accurately,
    humanely, and without a dedication to personal power & gain.
    But those are my lifelong political ideals, my sensitivities.
    They haven't changed, though my scope of 'expectation' has.
               
    - Boleslaw
             
    
                                                  

    The term "percipient" is frequently used as a less impersonal and
    more specific term than "subject" in connection with ESP experiments.
    Similarly the term "agent" is used both in PK experiments and for
    the apparent "sender" in telepathy (aka GESP) experiments.
    
    In descriptions of spontaneous events the same terms may be used
    or the term "experient" (i.e., someone who had the experience under
    discussion) may be.
    
    The problem with using any of these terms as substitutes for "psychic"
    is that they refer not to any permanant or semi-permanat characteristic
    of the person themselves but to their role within a limited context.
    
    Without that context, an experient is someone who experiences
    *anything*, an agent is someone who does anything, by any means,
    and a percipient is someone who perceives (sees, hears, understands,
    etc.) anything by any means.  In other words anyone who is not
    catatonic or comatose is all three of these things.
    
    "Psychic" as a noun is at least 80 years old, and probably 100 years.
    It is less ambiguous than "psychic" as an adjective, which can be
    used to refer to anything about the psyche or mind, e.g., psychic
    distress is emotional distress not a telepathic attack.
    
    Sensitive is usually used specifically to someone who has what would
    be called by a parapsychologist, strong ESP ability, while a "psychic"
    refers to someone who has either strong ESP or strong PK (or both,
    of course).
    
    					Topher

    Which goes to show us that all this has now become spectacularly
    particularized. The next logical step would have to be licensing,
    based on agreed classification(s).     But isn't this a bit much?
    
    Shall we work all the more @ restricting all this to individuals
    with highly professionalized abilities,   OR shall we distribute
    it amongst All of us who in Any Way participate... in Any of it?
    
    That is: does anyone want to add a string of abbreviations to a
    person's name to qualify {exactly} what they are licensed to do?
    
    {In American parlance it's called: "hanging out one's shingle."}
    
    In this increasingly professionalized contemporary world I should
    think a merciful blurring of classifications might be in order,in
    our area, in particular. Not obfuscation; just a light-fogging.
    
    My caution about finding a term not exploitable by Pray-TV ravers
    is perhaps the best part of my suggestion. Do think about it. It
    speaks to a situation which is both power & category-obsessed, a
    pseudo-anti-science in the service of both hysteria & charlatanism. 
   
    The Truth may ONCE have set people free, but hysterical categories
    have very effectively done-away-with countless millions up to now.
    "Sensitive" people in service of Humanity is an obvious way up&out;
    it doesn't beg the question; it REquestions the Pray-TV Beggar$.
     
    -Boleslaw                         
    

    
    In some cases, psychics *do* require a license to operate.
    
    -Perry
    

    Re .17:
    
    Actually, in Massachusetts, a Tarot reader who reads professionally
    (for money), or a scryer, tea-leaf reader, etc. who likewise work
    professionally are supposed to be licensed.  The law states that
    the people are supposed to be licensed for the community in which
    they operate (though one supposes that one license would cover the
    Commonwealth); that otherwise ordained by the town, the license
    fee should be $2.00 annually.
    
    The reason I'm aware of this is that some years ago, an acquaintence
    of mine who runs an establishment that includes various readers
    was having some difficulties with some locals; he had _all_ his
    readers go to their respective towns of residence and get licenses
    (one went to West Newton and when she asked for a license, the
    town clerk looked at her and said, "Are you crazy?").  They all
    did so, but the law _is_ obscure and only enforces hor harrassment
    purposes.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I seem to recall that situation as being about the Framingham
    Shoppers' World bottom-level located House of Zodiac Bookstore,
    which we visit annually for the pocket astrologer datebook that
    they reorder annually. I've gotten a French-language Tarot Deck 
    (for carolin) there, which (unfortunately) she never opened. 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    BUT my point was implicitly one of non-profit activity. Licenses
    are invariably a means of levying taxes, as well as registration
    & to some degree certification of professional activity. Licenses
    for Tarot readers hardy certify (no known exam), they just levy,
    & register. They probably have their origins in the residuual
    Puritan origins of the Commonwealth in its latter-day transformation
    into the Holy Roman (Catholic) People's Commonmwealth of Massachusetts
    (cf. a union of Church & State that equals Utah's), to quote carolin.
    (Humorously, albeit.) Licenses for 'prescribers' may be in deference
    to the AMA. (I know a Scandanavian-American from Minnesota who is
    a 'practicing' traditional Chinese herbalist who is quite careful
    not to become visible/audible to the AMA for fear of the consequences.
    Again, the licensing problem in an acute form: he might be prosecuted
    for prescribing without a medical license. )
    
    Am I a free-market advocate of no licensing? No, it's just: they
    don't certify quality of talent, just compliance with regulations;
    decertification/revocation of license may cause a loss of ability
    to practice in some states/communites but only proves incompetence
    according to the relevant board(s) of review; decertifying an M.D.
    is about as easy as impeaching a standing U.S. President if what
    we read in the papers is any accurate representational percentage.
    The M.D. community-of-peers gives incompetents great medical licence.
    
    Perhaps the only relevant reviewing discipline for Tarot readers
    might be personal guidance-counsellors, no doubt regulated in
    some states, unregulated in others (cf. marriage-counsellors are
    allegedly utterly UNlicensed in Live Free Or Die NH. Still true?)
    But can anyone imagine the AGCA (American Guidance Counsellors' 
    Assoc., if indeed it's called that as such) admitting Tarot?
    
    We're better off being a bit vague & a bit more responsible. QED.
    Also unpaid. (Less incentive for licensers to seek tax sources.)
    In short: a casual, humane, nonprofit activity, not a profession.
    
    - Boleslaw