Conference hydra::dejavu

    In theory only, it's quite possible.  Indeed, in some legends, this
    has happened.  The genies (djinn) of the _Arabian Nights_ are actually
    supposed to be demons of various sorts who were captured by magicians
    and imprisoned in bottles that were sealed magically (most commonly
    with the "seal of Solomon" [a hexagram like the Star of David] done
    in lead metal sealing the mouth of the bottle.   According to
    tradition,  the one who started the practice was King Solomon himself.
    
    In Medieval times, some sorcerers reputedly could call up spirits
    or demons, but generally then it was the sorcerer rather than the
    supernatural entity who was "contained" (in his or her protective
    circle).  There were, however, some wards (talismans, etc) that
    presumably could repel supernatural entities (a hexagram of Solomon
    -- the same ones on the djinn bottles -- could be used for this);
    presumably, if one could induce an entity to enter a room and place
    (spring-loaded?) wards on the four walls, floor, and ceiling, before
    it could get out....
    
    The real problem is that you may be asking whether there's any form
    of energy shield that can block an entity from paassing through...
    using known energies, that is, like volts.
    
    In the movie _Ghostbusters_, there was a lot of pseudoscientific
    doubletalk about how this could be done.   But that's all it was.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
                                              

	In one of Robert Monroes' books (Far Journeys?) on OBE's he talks
	about an experiment he performed.  The details are sketchy in my
	memory but it involved generating an electrical	field around his
	body to form a Faraday cage and then attempting to leave his physical
	body.  He was unable to do it and felt that he was held back by
	something resembling a net.  This would lead you to believe that
	other non-physical entities could be restrained in the same way.

	Maybe "Ghostbusters" wasn't so far off.

	John...

    	There was an interesting discussion of capturing a spirit in
    a bottle in _The_Secret_Science_Behind_Miracles_  by Max Freedom
    Long.   The spirit in question was a "low self" (equivalent to
    a subconscious mind).   It was hypnotized (willed) to go into
    the bottle, then thrown in the ocean.
    	In this story, the spirit appeared to be a smokey sort of haze
    that floated near the ground.   It obeyed willed commands the
    way any subconscious might.
    	He says that there is also a "middle self" (conscious mind),
    as well as a "high self".   The middle self and the low self 
    might might accidently become separated at death.   Earth bound
    sprits (according to his model) are mostly separated low or middle
    selves.
	One might suspect other kinds of spirits might not so easily
    be contained.   This spirit was said to be easily contained due to 
    it's stupidity and obedience.
	Some fascinating material in Max's books....
    
    alan.

    Re .3:
    
    No, the pentagram could prevent demons from reaching the magus who
    called it up.  Traditionally, the magus stood within a "pentacle"
    [sometimes called "pantacle"] circle because it could kep the demon
    out.  In some forms of ceremonial magic, a second circle with a
    triangle was used to "contain" the demon, but in some traditions
    that inscribed triangle was more a focal spot than a "containment
    vessel."  The "pentacle" might or might not have a five- or
    six-pointed  star within it.  The_Grimoire of Honorius_ has different
    pentacles for every day of the week, to conjure up different demons;
    the only pentacle in that series that has anything even loosely
    representing a star is the one for the conjuration of the demon
    Silcharde (Thursday's demon), and one would really have to stretch
    one's imagination to think of that circumscribed symbol as a star
    of either five or six points.
    
>... stories where someone accidentally erased part of one of the lines
>of a pentagram and let the demon out (usually with fatal consequences))
    
    Actually, if the stories were technically accurate, the incomplete
    pentagram would let the demon _in_ rather than out.
    Pentacles in the form of medallions (e.g., metalic and hung from
    the neck on a chain) are sometimes used as talismans to ward off
    spirits, demons, and the like.  These need not be star-shaped, either.
    
    
    The Seal of Solomon mentioned in .1 can be used in the form of a
    medallion.
    
    The Sumerians also had a "demon trap," which was a bowl with a spiral
    inscription that they presumed the demons would follow from the
    outside rim to the center of the bowl.  The incurving spiral
    inscription would prevent the demons from escaping, according to
    their beliefs.  However, archeologists who uncovered these traps
    never found any with demons in them. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

RE: .2
    
    (I *still* haven't gotten around to reading Monroe -- a distinct
    gap in my coverage of the field I agree -- so it should be understood
    that the following is a response to John's uncertain memories rather
    than to whatever Monroe actually wrote).
    
    A Faraday cage cannot be created by generating an electric field
    in the usual sense.  A Faraday cage is a solid metal box (if high
    frequencies are not of concern then it can consist of a grill instead,
    hence the name) without any openings.  Any electromagnetic field
    impinging on the box will be "shorted" (this is a gross simplification)
    out and so in a perfect Faraday cage there is no electromagnetic
    radiation except that generated within.  In practice no Faraday
    cage is perfect (its next to impossible to put a door in, for example,
    which can be sealed perfectly enough to be of the same quality as
    the box as a whole) but quite good ones can be made for the radio
    range.  Light will, of course, be blocked as will be UV and most
    X-rays.  Infrared will diffuse through (by conduction to the inner
    wall and then reradiation).  And high-energy gamma rays will get
    through.
    
    Faraday cages have been used a number of times in parapsychology
    experiments without showing any effect on ESP or PK -- most recently
    by Charles Tart in a report delivered at the Parapsychology Association
    annual meeting last summer.  He had an engineer specializing in
    Faraday cages come in and measure the quality of his cage with good
    results.  The relationship between ESP/PK and OBEs is, of course,
    unclear.
    
    Monroe's experiment, as described, suffers from the same problem
    that virtually all of Monroe's experiments seem to (from second
    hand reports) -- a total lack of blind controls.  OBEs have been
    shown to be very sensitive to beliefs and psychological factors.
    What this comes down to is that if Monroe believed that the FC even
    *might* interfere with his OBE and if he knew that the FC was in
    place then it would be expected that it would interfere with his
    experiencing an OBE.  A positive result (i.e., a successful OBE)
    could be taken as evidence that the cage does not interfere with
    OBEs but nothing much can be concluded from a negative one.
    
    An interesting historical note: an experiment with a FC in Russia
    back in the 30's(?) demonstrated to the government that ESP was
    not electromagnetic.  In their eyes this made it "mystical" and
    against dialectic materialism and all further work on parapsychology
    was banned.  It contined in Russia only underground.  Work officially
    was started again only when a (apparently mistaken) report in a
    French popular magazine appeared claiming that the US Navy had been
    experimenting with ESP for communication with submarines.
    
    				Topher

    Re .6:
    
    I think the implication of .2 was that a _charged_ conductor would
    block supernatural passage.  A person inside a FC would effectively
    "sense" no electric field, but the outer surface would show the
    field existed.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Some more thoughts:
    
    Vampires (of the Dracula stripe) are clearly supernatural creatures,
    Besides crucifixes, they are supposed to be repelled by garlic.
    A vampire, then, might be "contained" in any container smeared with
    fresh garlic juice.
    
    In general, _to the extent any supernatural creature can interact
    with its environment_, the environment has an equivilent effect
    on the creature.  Therefore, besides "repelling" items like pentacles,
    something that the supernatural entity cannot interpenetrate coulkd
    hold it.  In the movie _Ghostbusters_, this was done by a
    not-very-well-defined electromagnetic energy.  But that was a film,
    and shouldn't be confused with anything appropaching "reality."
    [Films are notoriously inaccurate in technical details.]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

	re .8

	Wait a minute...  If there are such occurances of supernatural
	beings I don't see how they could be contained by anything we
	produce.  They're not of this dimension so how could things that
	are even affect them?  How could they be contained by something
	that is not part of their 'world'?  Suppose that there is a two
	dimensional world with living, breathing beings a part of it.
        As I set my hand on their 'world', say the surface of a table,
	there's nothing they can do to contain 'me'.  The part of me
	that intersects their 'world' would certainly appear to be
	supernatural, but they can do nothing to keep me from lifting
	my hand.  Right?

	Terry

RE: .9 (Terry)
    
    If they can interact with me, then I can interact with them.  The
    question is whether I can *effectively* interact with them, and
    that we can't know unless we know something of their nature and
    the nature of their interaction.  If they are 4 dimensional beings
    who are intersecting our 3 dimensional space (which you seem to
    simply assume) than we still have the potential of effecting them.
    
    Imagine that you dip, not your hand, but, to make things as clear
    as possible, that you dip an hourglass into Flatland up to its
    narrowest point.  A Flatlander ties a string around the circle that
    they see.  To move the hourglass out of the plane, you would have
    to expand the strings loop, or you would have to lift it out of
    Flatland.  The former clearly takes force, and the latter may
    also either because it is impossible to remove a Flatland object
    from its context or because the other end is attached to something
    fixed relative to Spaceland (because it also is 3-D or because
    it is heavy, or because it is *its* nature even if it is not the
    nature of all Flatland objects).
    
    We don't know enough to know whether or not it is possible.
    
    					Topher

RE: .10 (Topher)
    
    > If they are 4 dimensional beings who are intersecting our 3 dimensional 
      space (which you seem to simply assume) than we still have the potential 
      of effecting them.
    
      Not necessarily 4th but some higher dimension.  And to take the
      Flatland example a bit farther to make my point, since their world
      is limited to 2-D then the 'string' they use would not have a 3rd
      dimension (they're limited by the rules of their world) and in our 
      3-D world the hour glass intersecting Flatland could not be affected; 
      just as we can't be cut by the 2-D line running along the edge of a 
      piece of paper.

    > We don't know enough to know whether or not it is possible.

      I agree...
    
      Terry

    Re .11 (Terry):
    
      >Not necessarily 4th but some higher dimension.  And to take the
      >Flatland example a bit farther to make my point, since their world
      >is limited to 2-D then the 'string' they use would not have a 3rd
      >dimension (they're limited by the rules of their world) and in our 
      >3-D world the hour glass intersecting Flatland could not be affected;
      > ...
       
    I can't agree: Topher (and I previously to him) specified that
    _interaction_ had to take place.  Now, for instance, if the hourglass
    didn't _interact_ with the Flatland space, then you'd be right.
    However, it does, in Topher's model.
    
    Now, let's look at the classic "supernatural" creatures:
    
    Ghosts give people chills -- i.e., they are _cold_ in some fashion.
    This is a physdical interaction with this plane (presuming it isn't
    a psychological chill, and ghost lore suggests it isn't).  Then
    a "containment vessel" might be something made of flame (or, in
    the case of a really macho ghost, plasma).
    
    Demons are said to produce physicaal manifestations; then, if they
    can affect material objects, material objects can affect them. 
    Demons sometimes "possess" humans.  When they are in human shells,
    it might be possible to contain them by containing their (willing
    or unwilling) hosts, especially in a room filled with the appropriate
    talismans.
    
    It's sort of a Newtonian principle: if it can affect us, we can
    affect it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

	re: .12 (Steve)

	Has anyone actually attempted such containment with any level
	of success (other than Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd)?  My own finite 
        mind is having trouble with this one.  When there is an 
	intersection between these levels, what we experience is somewhat
	of an illusion and to try to affect it, limited by the 'rules'
	of 3 dimensions, can't work due to the fact that it's not really 
        here (physically speaking). :^% <- (that's a perplexed look...)

	Terry

    Re .13 (Terry):
    
    That is a beautiful multiplexed question (that is, it's several
    questions in one).  The answers have to do with our understanding,
    however slight, of what "supernatural" beings _could be_.
    
    There are two possibilities:
    
    1) The beings are manifestations involving higher spatial dimensions
    in one way or another.
    
    2) They are restricted, effectively, to the cosmos we know.
    
    Let's take the first case first.  Either the beings are 4- (or higher)
    dimensional, or they are three-dimensional but asre interposed into
    our space _via_ a higher dimensdion, by projection.  The analog
    to this second is the projection of an (effectively) two-dimensional
    image on a film to a two-dimensional movie screen.  Another would
    be projecting shadow pictures on a wall.  In such a situation, there
    would be no _inter_action, even if we _react_ to the image.  Naturally,
    such a projection could not be contained in our space.  The first
    case (analog, us to a Flatlander) I covered earlier.  If they can
    affect us, we can affect them; and if they can't, we can't.
    
    The case where no "higher" space dimensions are involved might be
    analogous to a radio or television set.  While there's a lot of
    stuff being broadcast, we [have mechanisms that] filter out all
    but one "reality."  Thus, I can watch Channel 4 while you watch
    Channel 7.  In this case, we can assume the supernatural entity
    as something that has "tuned" to us [analogously] sufficiently to
    materialize in our space.  One form of such "tuning" traditionally
    has been the magician that summons demons and suchlike.  _If_ thisd
    model is correct, while that being is "tuned" to us (which it might
    not be able to control), we can interact, and it thus has the potential
    of being contained.
    
    There have been stories of attempts of "containing" supernatural
    entities, but nothing's been verified, one way or the other.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    	One effective mechanisim for containment of less advanced
    spirits may well be;
    
	    *hypnotism*!
    
    							Alan.

RE: .15 (Alan)
    
    Couldn't let this go by without comment.
    
    An effective mechanism for containment might be a hypothetical,
    possibly "magic", method of stupification and mind control which
    resembles hypnosis on the surface.
    
    Hypnosis is not, despite the stereotype, a method of one person
    imposing their will on another.  Nor is it more effective on the
    less intelligent, the less enlightened, or in other ways the "less
    advanced".  If anything, the reverse is true.
    
    You might be able to keep supernatural entities in one place by
    convincing them that it is what they want to do (possibly by
    misleading them), and hypnosis might be used to help that effort.
    
    					Topher

	re: .14 (Steve)

	This is one of those that can't be settled.  I do see your point,
	considering the different possibilities of the origin of such
	supernatural beings.

	If what you're saying is correct, that means if I get 'slimed' I 
        can do something about it, right? 		

	Terry (:-? <- not as perplexed as before, but still a little...).

    Re .17 (Terry):
    
        >If what you're saying is correct, that means if I get 'slimed' I 
        >can do something about it, right? 		
         
    If you know how to, and if you survive the "sliming." ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE: .16 (Topher)
    
    How do you hypnotize something that doesn't have a brain?  You are
    placing animal constraints on a supposedly nonanimal being.  If
    one could expect a supernatural entity to be hypnotized, one could
    as well expect it to wear shoes.
    
    John M. 

    Re .19 (John)
    
    A little ~/~ , eh?
    
    >How do you hypnotize something that doesn't have a brain? ...
    
    If it's a volitional being, which is hypothecated in the initial
    question, then whether it's got a brain or not is secondary to that
    it has a mind.  If it has a mind, then something on the order of
    hypnosis is potentially possible.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    So the question now is what do you do if the entity in question
    begins singing "If I only had a brain...."?
    
    Cindy

>    So the question now is what do you do if the entity in question
>    begins singing "If I only had a brain...."?

Ask it where it learned that song.  If it has an answer, it has a brain, and 
you may inform it of such.  If it simply repeats the song, find the "Off" 
switch - it's obviously carrying a tape recorder.

RE: .19 (John M.)
    
    That's an interesting question, John.  I'll start by giving the
    simple (not so interesting) answer and then go into a bit of depth.
    
    Simple answer: I don't *expect* a supernatural entity to be
    hypnotized, but I can't reject the possibility a priori.
    
    Juicy details: There is currently a cross-disciplinary argument
    raging about the "best" level of abstraction to describe the
    functioning of the brain.  Some argue that only "neurons" are
    real, so the only "scientific" description is in terms of them
    and their interconnections.  Others argue that describing the
    functioning of the brain in terms of neurons is like describing
    an air-conditioner in terms of the individual molecules in its
    hardware and "working fluids", and that the "best" description
    is on the so-called "symbol level".
    
    My particular interest is more on the symbol level, but I think
    that which level is best (and there are many intermediate levels)
    depends on exactly what you are trying to define.
    
    A rough analogy is that the neuron level corresponds to computer
    "hardware" while the symbol level corresponds to "software" (some
    tend to equate at least the "higher" symbol levels of description
    with descriptions of "mind" but this is a matter of choice as to
    whether this is what you mean by the rather ill-defined concept
    of "mind").
    
    It would be foolish to try to describe a bad boundary condition
    on a loop in terms of which specific gates (on every computer the
    program runs on) turned on or off or failed to do so.  Equally,
    it is foolish to treat a power glitch as an essentially software
    problem, though it may be reasonable to ask about its consequences
    on that level.
    
    The question becomes -- is hypnosis a consequence of hardware (specific
    to the human neurological system, and therefore not likely to be
    found in quite different "cognitive systems"), a consequence of
    the software property of "intelligence" (and therefore likely to
    be a property of any "intelligent" symbol processing system whatever
    hardware its implemented on), a software consequence of specific,
    non-essential-to-intelligence, constraints under which the human
    program developed (and therefore likely to be a property only if
    similar constraints were placed on the initelligent symbol processing
    system; e.g., if was a gregarious pack entity to which social concensus
    was of positive benifit), or a consequence of implementing an
    intelligent "program" on certain types of hardware (in which case
    it would occur only in intelligent systems whose hardware corresponded
    in some more or less abstract property with the human brain)?
    
    The only fact (actually more of a non-fact) that I know which is
    relevant is that there are no *known* physiological correlates to
    hypnosis.  For example, the EEG of a hypnotized person is
    indistinguishable from that of a relaxed, alert person.
    
    Since I can't answer the question, I can only say that it is possible
    that if supernatural entities exist, and can meaningfully described
    as intelligent (more so, less so, or about the same as humans) then
    it is possible that they can be hypnotized and therefore it is
    possible that hypnosis might be an aid to convincing them to stay
    around.  I'm not sure how to convince them to be hypnotized in the
    first place, nor exactly how you would use the state to convince
    them they want to stay, but the possibility exists.
    
    					Topher

    
    	In certain esoteric teachings, it is believed that there is
    an 'emotional body' which we have in common with all animals.
    These teachings say that we have other bodies as well, but it is
    the emotional body that can be hypnotized.    It appears that
    snakes hypnotize their prey, and no doubt there are other examples
    of animal hypnosis or trance states.
    
    	According to this model a spirit may have several components,
    or may lack components.   An animal (emotional) spirit can be
    brought under the direct control of a conscious mind, or under the
    control of a stronger animal spirit.    The only spirits that can
    be controlled in this way would be those open to suggestion, and
    lacking the creative will to counter those suggestions.   
    
    	We all can (and should) learn to consciously exercise control over 
    our own emotional bodies.   Perhaps 'exercise control' overstates
    it a bit, since the process is more like gaining the cooperation of a
    child and is best achieved by enlisting it's self-interest.   The
    concept/model of the 'emotional body' seems quite similar in practice
    to aspects of the 'subconscious mind', in that both seem to function
    in terms of emotionally charged images.   It also seems to be the
    part of the mind that accesses memory.

	I personally have little experience with this, but have read several
    accounts from widely varying sources, by those who have described this 
    type of thing.   This type of spirit is said to look like a puff
    of smoke.    In Lynn Andrews "Medicine Woman", she describes a fellow
    apprentice who had this component of her spirit stolen by a rival
    evil sorcerer.    With it gone, she seemed emotionless, and memoryless,
    although some aspect of consciousness remained.   Agnes Whistling
    Elk told Lynn that the girl would die if it was not recovered soon.
    Red Dog (the rival sorcerer) was keeping it in a gourd.   They
    recaptured the gourd, and were able to restore the girl to full health.
    
    	I had read several such tales from the Americas, Africa, Polynesia,
    and had been dismissing them as unbelieveable, until I kept running
    across some of the same elements in each tale.    More recently,
    I have learned to accept that there is definitly some element of
    truth to all these tales, and am searching for the next keys to
    it;  (Does this 'spirit' have some material element?   How is memory
    encoded in it?   Does the smokey stuff have something to do with
    Mesmer's 'magnetic fluid'?....)

	Again, the best reference I have found for this stuff is a
    somewhat hard to find book;  "The Secret Science Behind Miracles"
    by Max Freedom Long.   He gives quite a detailed description of
    the theory being used by the people who are into these things.

    			Alan.

RE: .24 (Alan)
    
    There is a type of spell which is known as a "fascination" (whether
    or not it actually exists).  The thoughts of a person (or animal) which
    is fascinated are "locked" by the spell into consideration of one
    simple thought or image and they are therefore unable to consider
    any other thought -- such as escape.  This is considered a magical
    process analagous to simple "rapt attention", but involuntary and
    more generally more powerful.  When we say that something is
    "fascinating" or that someone is "fascinated" we are technically
    speaking metaphorically.
    
    It used to be said that snakes caught their prey by casting a
    fascination (i.e., by fascinating) them.
    
    Post-Mesmer hypnosis frequently (and this is still true) used a
    voluntary fixation of attention on some object or idea as part of
    the induction procedure.  Frequently, optical illusions or other
    psychological tricks were used to make this fixation easier, but
    it was always voluntary.
    
    A popular (and popular does not preclude many practicioners) equation
    grew up between "hypnosis" and "fascination".  So it came to be
    that it was said that a snake "hypnotizes" its prey.
    
    Snakes do *not* normally catch their prey either by "hypnotizing"
    them or by "fascinating" them.  They catch them pretty much the
    same way other predators do, by a combination of sneaking up on
    them and moveing faster (at the last moment) then they do.  If
    they use "hypnosis/fascination" it is extremely rare, I have yet
    to see a first hand account of it, even in the "occult" literature
    (though I'm sure one can find someone who will claim to have seen
    it).
    
    A likely source of this story is small animals who are literally
    paralyzed with fear.  I assure you, hypnosis is the polar opposite
    of paralyzed panic.
    
    Mesmer believed in his "animal magnetism" because he believed that
    it was the simplest way to explain the results of certain experiments
    he did.  Later others showed that essentially the same results could
    be obtained in ways which his "animal magnitism" theory did not
    explain, but that were consistent with essentially psychological
    theories.  Mesmer never accepted these alternatives but I believe
    that this was the unfortunate consequence of early, ignorant criticism
    of his work by the scientific (medical) establishment of his day,
    which made him embittered and rigid.  From what little I know of
    him I think that it is likely that if presented while he was young
    with the evidence which only appeared later in his life, that he
    would have been one of the first to abandon his theories.
    
    In other words, to associate the "smokey stuff" with Mesmer's magnetic
    fluid would be to say that it does not exist.  I would not bother
    pursuing that chain of reasoning if I were you.
    
    					Topher

Well, here's one for you;

Back in the days when I was hanging out with the Denver gypsies, the Chief 
Weirdo left a metal (I think copper?) bowl-like thing in my car, that had 
spikes on the bottom "rim".  It was black on the inside with a resin of sorts, 
and it "asked" me to clean it out.  I did, to reveal some beautiful type of 
hieroglyphics on the inside.  I have no idea what origin.  I had thought the 
bowl belonged to one of the other brainwashed people, but when I told the Chief 
Weirdo that I'd found Raymond's bowl in my car, she said no, it was hers, and 
she'd been looking for it (It was one of her High Magick pieces, one of several 
that she kept hidden from us all) and not to touch it.  According to her, it 
was some thousands-of-years-old incense burner.  Too late; I'd already taken 
COMET to it, to get the grunge off!!

She said she'd put some fire spirits in it during a campfire at Larkspur, where 
some ancient Indian burial ground is located, and that since I'd cleaned it, I 
now had fire spirits with me.

Piffle, I say; if anything was released, it didn't "stick" with me!

Hmmm...