Conference hydra::dejavu

    I don't see anything wrong with them bringing along props.
    They are right - if they didn't have it, most people wouldn't want to
    go.  It adds effect and effect is what people want. 
    
    I kinda think of being a great chef - you still need to have a nice
    atmosphere for people to come to - if you don't they'd go somewhere
    else......
    
    

It's not the props that really concern me. I only mentioned
them because of what the "witch" said about them - which
made her sound like she was a down-to-earth type...
(i.e. in-touch with reality)

which in turn made me rather concerned about the research
these people are in to.

    Re -1
    
    Can you elaborate on what bothers you about the research. Admittedly,
    I know nothing about how one would construct an "external larynx out
    of leftover (?) ectoplasm", but it doesn't sound too nefarious to me.
    
    
    Marilyn

re .3

>    Can you elaborate on what bothers you about the research.

See .0

>Is this kind of thing *really* going on? Is it legal?
>what about any moral/ethical or religious considerations?
>not to mention the social and philosophical arguments...

for example...

	Had our old mate Albert been blessed with slightly more
	vision/wisdom, do you really think he would have gone
	to the trouble of explaining all the theory behind
	atomic physics?

get my drift?

    re .0
    
    Does this sort of thing go on...
    
    Psychics have supposedly been using ectoplasm for generations. Most of
    the physical materialisations/manifestation, table rappings etc of the late
    nineteenth century were reported as the manipulation of ectoplasm taken
    from a medium in trance by the will of a living or "dead" person.
    (The ectoplasm being manipulated into physical rods, trumpets etc and
    used to lift, rap, )
    
    Physical manifestations are less common nowadays, probably due to
    the general evolution or such of people. In any case, deep trance
    mediumship originating from the solar plexus area is generally agreed
    to be of the more dangerous type (to the medium).
    
    As to it being a morality issue.(?) They are, from your account, only
    trying to invent an easy method for "the dead" to communicate so that
    they can be heard by the non pyschic living. If they succeed good or
    bad could happen as in any communication. If they are truly psychic
    themselves and are clairaudient, then this work must be intended as a
    gift for others, hence would likely to be a service to humanity not a
    work of evil.
    
    
    Is this legal?...I cannot imagine any circumstances where an argument
    could be formulated  questioning the legality of this activity. Are
    there any anti witch laws still about...surely not.
     
    Whether one agrees, understands or views them as cranks, their
    activities, as described, at worst are pretentious, most likely are 
    harmless and quite possibly are intended as a serious research into
    furthering the ability of communication between the Physical and astral
    planes.
    
    I would wish them (and you) well. To fear or persecute them would be a
    travesty.
    
    regards
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    I have read that the 

Steve,

	Thankyou - exactly what I wanted to know. And, I might add,
	a well-balanced attitude towards the whole subject.

Pete.

Re: .0

The reason I went to the 'psychic fair'...

One night, alone and asleep at home, I awoke to find what could only
be described as a feeling of being "not alone". Then something touched my
forehead. Although it was still dark, there was enough light to see nothing
(and nobody) could have done so. The feeling lasted about 10 minutes.

About a month later I 'phoned an old friend and more or less invited myself
to stay with her and her husband. At the time I couldn't say why I did this
- I hadn't seen her in over ten years.

After I arrived, we got to talking and she informed me that she had been
"visited" several times - the 1st of which coincided *exactly* with my
visitation. I should add that she lives over 100 miles from me.

She told me that in her second visitation, a message had been spoken to her,
from a deceased member of my family. It was a warning that something was going
to happen but I was not to be afraid, for all would be well.

Two weeks later I fell seriously ill, and shortly after, recovered.

I eventually (I'm a bit slow on the uptake of things psychic/spiritual) put
two-and-two together and linked the warning with my illness.

This stimulated my curiosity to such a degree that I abandoned my sceptisism
and went to the fair. They people I found there were, as I've already said,
quite helpful, and when I asked them what I should do (if anything), they
advised me to "do" whatever felt right for me.

As the weeks went on, my search for something (I still know not what) took
me into the realms of the church (various orders) and even to other
"spiritually gifted" folk. To no avail - other than a little peace found
in church and more curiosity about spiritual/psychic matters.

Eventually, I find myself here, confused and in need of something that seems
to elude me. I'm no longer sure of what I'm looking for, but I know it's there...

I know, to some, I may sound like a crackpot, but I *know* I'm missing
something important here. I'm not experienced enough in the sort of things
that have happened recently to understand them, or indeed, to know what to do.

If I sound scared, it's because I am. If any can advise or guide me...

Pete.

|If I sound scared, it's because I am. If any can advise or guide me...
    
    Welcome to the ranks of the 'seekers.'  I think you'll find that
    a lot of people who participate in ::DEJAVU can empathize with
    your feelings.  
    
    re: "crackpots"
    
    You most certainly do _not_ sound like a crackpot,
    crackpots do not in general have anxiety or uncertainty about their 
    beliefs; they have very definite theories and are usually very certain 
    that their theories are correct, and that everyone else in the world
    would benefit by them.  They don't bother to test or doubt them
    before setting up shop, and come up with a multitude of weak excuses why
    they must actively promote something that the majority of careful 
    observations show to be patently false.  And of course they would
    not generally admit to thinking of themselves tentatively as crackpots.
    
    There may be a number of crackpots soliciting at a psychic fair, depending 
    on the fair, since people set these up and participate in them for
    a variety of different reasons, but the people who go there sincerely 
    interested are not at all crackpots, imo.  I very much prefer to reserve
    that term for taking crass commercial advantage of people's uncertainty
    or willingness to try the unconventional, rather than for simply
    trying out unconventional ideas.
    
    							todd

                                     
    Pete,
    
    Just to get a better idea...is this your first experience with
    something 'beyond the typical norm' of general day-to-day life,
    and is that what you're grappling with?
    
    Are you also looking for resources to consult that are a bit out
    of the mainstream, such as books, organizations, and the like?
    Are you familiar with the work of institutions such as the Institute 
    of Noetic Sciences, for example?
    
    Cindy

    
    PS. We 'crackpots' here in DEJAVU enjoy our profession, by the way!  
        ('Cracking through' the well-formed pots that we grew up with,
        to get at the stuff that Reality is made of.)

    Well, you may identify with that label, Cindy, but the kind of people I 
    think of as crackpots are not in any sense particularly spiritual
    people.  In fact their main characteristic seems to be lack of true 
    self-insight and unwillingness to face difficult negative aspects of 
    reality, which are the opposite of the qualities I associate with highly 
    spiritual people.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

                                                                    
    Todd,
    
    The American Heritage dictionary says:
    
    Crackpot:
    
    	"An eccentric person, esp. one with bizarre ideas."
    
    Eccentric:
    
    	"Departing or deviating from the conventional or established norm."
    
    I have definitely been known by some to fit these definitions.  
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Btw, I should be getting an 'A' in my Philosophy 101 course.  (;^)

Cindy,

	for a better idea... it's my first experience in adult life
	(i had one in early childhood, and a couple in my teens), but this
	latest episode (warning and all) has been the most challenging.

	You're right - I am looking for resources - I am, however,
	very wary. A friend of mine (the best friend of the other "visited"
	person) warned me of bogus organizations and unsympathetic theological
	idealists. I've had dealings with both (because I prefer to judge for
	myself), and she was right to warn me.

	If it helps, I'm 31, English, well travelled and educated in science
	(Physics). I've always had an interest in Philosophy and Psychology.
	I enjoy photography, music theory and I've had short stories published.

	I'd really appreciate any help I could get. I've tried to work things
	out for myself, and I've sought wisdom and knowledge from other
	(respected or otherwise) sources. I don't know where to go from here...

Pete. 

    re: Cindy,
    
    	As I think you should well know, the brief definition in an abridged
    	dictionary does not generally express the richness of the various
    	connotations of the term as it is generally used, nor does it
    	provide the literary precedents, which are equally important.  
    
    	Most people would like to think of themselves as a little eccentric, 
    	or special, and in some ways, everyone _is_ special, but few are 
    	actually _fanatical_ about it.  That's where the distinction comes in.
    
    	A fuller description of the 'crackpot' as found in modern 
    	literature would paint them something like :
    
    	1.  Promoting extraordinary claims with fanatical vigor,
    		often drawing a cult following.
    
    	2.  Unshakable belief that they are right primarily because they
    		are brilliant and everyone else who has looked into the
    		claims is an idiot.
    
    	3.  Unshakable belief that they are not better recognized in their
    		field because of organized persecution and conspiracy.
    
    	4.  They use extremely weak or unconventional standards of
    		evaluation for their claims, in addition to the claims
    		themselves being extraordinary.
    
    Examples :
    
    	L. Ron Hubbard was the classic crackpot, in my opinion, since he was 
    	by all accounts a fanatical egomaniac whose ratio of extraordinary 
    	claims to competence in or sincere efforts at evaluating those claims 
    	was unusually high, but whose capacity for promotion of his ideas
    	was seemingly limitless.  
    
    	People who promote sidhis as spiritual exercises, and often also 
    	claim 'scientific evidence' for it are, imo, though to a lesser extent,
    	crackpots.  The often cited example is the folks who teach students to 
    	levitate by bouncing on their butt in lotus positions and trying to 
    	stay up in the air longer and longer each time.  This they try to
    	disguise among the more legitimate parapsychology and meditation
    	research related to apparent sidhis.  
    
    	Cindy, by these criteria, do you still consider yourself a 
    	crackpot ?
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    
    Re.14
    
    Some probably would, Todd.  (;^)
    
    But back to the topic at hand.  Pete, the Institute of Noetic Sciences
    was founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell just after his moonwalk back in
    the early 1970s.  He published a book - which is now out of print,
    unfortunately - on psychic research back then, and I understand he is
    going to publish another book very soon (though the topic is slightly
    different.)  I introduced Dr. Mitchell at a conference I worked on last 
    summer.  He is a wonderful person, and obviously grounded in
    traditional scientific practices.  The area he focuses in on now is 
    consciousness research.  Though he's no longer involved day-to-day in 
    the Institute, the works that they publish and recommend are all 
    top-notch.  I'd highly recommend joining if you can.  Dues are now
    $35.00 per year, and tax-deductible (it's a non-profit organization.)
    
    Check out note 1035 in this conference for more information on IONS. 
    (Ignore the rest in that string past .0 (;^)
    
    Since you've studied physics, I can recommend some of Fred Alan Wolf's
    books too.  He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from UCLA, and wrote "Taking
    The Quantum Leap", "Parallel Universes", and most recently "The Eagle's 
    Quest", about him down in Peru hanging out with shamans having a real 
    interesting time in the spiritual underworld.  (;^)  I know him 
    (introduced him at the same conference last summer), and was at a 
    workshop with him where he talked about the intersections of quantum 
    physics and shamanism.  Mindblowing stuff.    
    
    The Universe, having a sense of humor that it does, made sure that the
    only Philosophy class I missed out on, in order to go to the workshop
    with Fred Wolf and Nicki Scully (she talks about Egyptian shamanism and
    journeying), was on the 'Possible Worlds' technique for evaluating 
    arguments.  (;^)  
    
    You might be interested in the first few notes in 457 in this conference 
    as well, but that's more of an aside. 
    
    Cindy 
               

Cindy,

	Thanks - that's helped. Note 457.* particularly. I hadn't realised
	that there were well-defined stages in Spiritual Development
	(don't ask me why - it just didn't occur to me!).
	As you can tell, I'm *very* new to this game.

	I guess what I'll do now is bounce ideas off people and see if I
	can learn anything. Who knows - I may even be able to contribute!

Pete.

    re: Pete,
    
    	A book by John Lash called "The Seeker's Handbook" gives 
    	a fascinating overview of the various paths people trod
    	in search of spiritual development, and even includes a
    	surprisingly good intellectual history of occultism, from
    	the Hermetica through the modern "New Age" revival, including
    	many cross-referenced literary references.  It does all this
    	without being athe least bit stuffy or having a distractingly 
    	scholarly patina, which makes it fairly rare.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

todd,

	many thanks - I'll try to track it down.

Pete.

	btw, does anyone know of any other conferences that may help me?
	(I'm already aware of grim::religion)

    
    Pete,
    
    For a good mix of all stages, you can look into:
    
    	LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    
    For a good overview of Stage II only (;^), you can look in:
    
    	YUKON::CHRISTIAN
    
    My own 'religion', if you will, is Unitarian Universalism.  If you're
    not familiar with it, you can look in:
    
    	SCHOOL::UU
    
    For Buddhism:
    
    	ERIS::BUDDHISM
    
    There isn't a conference on Hinduism, though there is one on INDIA:
    
    	VAXWRK::INDIA
    
    Cindy
                                  

    Maybe I'm not catching on to the stages business, but
    prior to or commensurate with stage I stuff in the baby food aisle is 
    mother's milk, tapioca, and Zwieback bread, the metaphorical equivalent
    of which may be found in such conferences as
    	ERIS::PHILOSOPHY, GRIM::HUMANISM, VAXCAT::HOLISTIC, and 
    	QUOKKA::PSYCHOLOGY, which also at times sometimes tolerate discussions 
    	of this nature, from widely different perspectives.  
    
    							todd

    
    For the most part, those are all excellent Stage III places, Todd.
         
    Cindy

|    For the most part, those are all excellent Stage III places, Todd.
    
    Oh, then I guess it's my analogy that is strained, rather than the
    veal and carrots.
    
    						todd

    
    I'm not at all sure what you meant by .22, Todd.
    
    Can you restate it, perhaps?  
    
    Cindy

    Hi, Cindy.  Interesting string, this!  :-)
    
    Cindy, have you written a "trip report" anywhere about last summer's
    conference?  Was it the one in Washington, D.C.?
    
    Love & Light,
    *Susan*/*Stella*

|    I'm not at all sure what you meant by .22, Todd.
|    Can you restate it, perhaps?  
    
    Yes, but it wouldn't help you to understand it.  It was just a silly
    baby food joke, based on the names of most products being
    'stage X.'  It's just what I thought of for some reason.
    
    						todd

	todd,
	
	perhaps if you typed   s l o w e r ???
	
	;-)

    
    Thanks, Todd.  
    
    Stella - hi!  No, haven't really done that yet.  Now that I have 
    some free time, it's on my agenda to do.  
    
    Cindy

	Having given the subject some thought, with the help of various
	conferences and a few other people, I've come to the following
	conclusions...

	In general, a religion consists of...

	A God; a prophet; a set of rules

	with variations on singular/plural, living or dead etc.

	It would seem that the best way to continue my development would
	be to study the works of one or more prophets...

	Or is there an easier / better way?

Pete.

p.s.	I heard an interesting mis-quote from a Psychologist yesterday -
	"There are as many religions as there are people".

    re: .28, 

    I'm not sure I agree about the requirement for a prophet per se.
    For example, most of the important figures in Taoism were more philosophers 
    than prophets, I think, unless you are using the term extremely loosely.

    And the concept of "God or Gods" is sometimes more of a supernatural
    force than personified or anthropomorphized beings (the cosmic muffin vs. 
    the hairy thunderer from the National Lampoon's Deteriorata, for
    example).

    If you follow the 'psychological' arguments, you could define religion
    more generally as a common symbol system for expressing the 
    'spiritual impulse,' whatever that is.
    
    						kind regards,

    						todd

    I once read that religion was the formalizing of our beliefs in the 
    questions relating to the "meaning of life" (how the world began, and
    other imponderables).
    
    Following that definition, one does not have to presuppose the
    existence of a god/gods, or prophets 
    
    
    Marilyn

    Re.28
    
    Pete,
    
    The main task of all the world religions *should be* to assist
    all members of humankind in realizing the divinity within 
    themselves and each other.  Or 'unified consciousness', if one doesn't
    particularly like the reference to 'divinity'.
    
    The rest is just details.  (;^)  The Books, the rituals, the 
    music - everything.
    
    Unfortunately, where there is a structure, there is also a greater
    chance for people to use the structure to gain control over others
    and to exploit them for selfish reasons.  Such has been the case in
    many of the world religions today, especially Christianity and Islam.
    
    Tolstoy in his later years discovered the core of Christianity which 
    is, "The Kingdom of God is Within You" - a well-known Biblical verse
    which is interpreted many many different ways.  Tolstoy also wrote a 
    great book by this same name.  Naturally, the book was banned by
    the State, and the Church didn't like it much either.  If the power, as
    Dorothy found out from the Wizard of OZ, is within you, then why bother
    with the Church and State?  (;^)  However, Gandhi read it and began to 
    correspond with Tolstoy while Gandhi was imprisoned in South Africa.  
    It was one of the key works that inspired Gandhi's idea of the 
    non-violent revolution that freed India from British rule.  Another one 
    was the essay "Civil Disobedience", by ...oh...what's name - can't 
    remember right now.  Anyway, Tolstoy's work is great, and highly
    recommended.
    
    (Was it Thoreau, perhaps?)
    
    Cindy
                                                 

RE: .31 (Cindy)

>    The main task of all the world religions *should be* to assist
>    all members of humankind in realizing the divinity within 
>    themselves and each other.  Or 'unified consciousness', if one doesn't
>    particularly like the reference to 'divinity'.

    With all due respect, Cindy, this is very much a statement of a
    religious doctrine, however widespread the doctrine is and, however
    much adhearants to that doctrine may be found within different
    religious traditions.  Your statement amounts to "The main task of all
    the world religions *should be* to follow my religion, though they may
    adopt whatever details of specific practice they wish."  I see no
    essential difference (beyond my personal greater sympathy for it)
    between your statement and "The main task of all religion *should be*
    to glofify Christ."

    In general, the purpose of any religion is explicitly or implicitly one
    of the tenants of that religion, whether the religion in question is
    fundamentalist Christianity, Voudon, Atheism, ... or personal
    mysticism.

				    Topher

         
    Re.32
    
    Topher,
    
    Then I add 'imo' to .31.
    
    Another book recommendation is: "The Undiscovered Self", by C.G.Jung.
    It's his last book, only 113 pages and one of the most readable, I've
    found.  The toc is:
    
    	1. The Plight of the Individual in Modern Society
    	2. Religion as the Counterbalance to Mass-Mindedness
    	3. The Position of the West on the Question of Religion
    	4. The Individual's Understanding of Himself
    	5. The Philosophical and Psychological Approach to Life
    	6. Self-Knowledge
    	7. The Meaning of Self-Knowledge
    
    Cindy

Could someone elaborate on what 'Personal Mysticism' is?

Pete_the_ignorant.

Re .34:
    
        There is some discussion of mysticism, personal and institutional,
        in the Philosophy conference at ERIS::PHILOSOPHY.  I recommend in
        particular topics 93 and 137.  Also, see any topic listed by
        DIR/KEY=MYSTICISM.
    
        I cross-post the following note on mysticism and mystical psychology:
    
================================================================================
Note 137.23                    Mystical Experience                      23 of 23
CUPMK::WAJENBERG                                    103 lines  23-FEB-1994 11:34
               -< Book Report: "Mysticism" by Evelyn Underhill >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wanted to assemble a small but cogent library on religious psychology, 
I would recommend it include the following four books:

	"Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James
	"The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley  (see topic 203)
	"The Idea of the Holy" by Rudolph Otto  (see topic 93)
	"Mysticism" by Evelyn Underhill

I think "Mysticism" is the least known of these.  It is, however, successful 
in its way, reaching its twelfth edition in 1930.  Here is the contents:

	Part One -- The Mystic Fact
		Chapter I: The Point of Departure
		Chapter II: Mysticism and Vitalism
		Chapter III: Mysticism and Psychology
		Chapter IV: The Characteristics of Mysticism
		Chapter V: Mysticism and Theology
		Chapter VI: Mysticism and Symbolism
		Chapter VII: Mysticism and Magic
	Part Two -- The Mystic Way
		Chapter I: Introductory
		Chapter II: The Awakening of the Self
		Chapter III: The Purification of the Self
		Chapter IV: The Illumination of the Self
		Chapter V: Voices and Visions
		Chapter VI: Introversion, Part I: Recollection and Quiet
		Chapter VII: Introversion, Part II: Contemplation
		Chapter VIII: Ecstasy and Rapture
		Chapter IX: The Dark Night of the Soul
		Chapter X: The Unitive Life
		Conclusion

Huxley, in "The Perennial Philosophy," occasionally shows an oriental bias, 
and sometimes describes Christianity as an immature approximation of Buddhism. 
Underhill has something of the contrary bias; she has only one explicitly 
negative remark about oriental religions, but she concentrates almost all her 
attention on Christian mystics, most of them Catholic saints -- the 
best-chronicled mystics easily available to a British author.

She also says up front that Christian theology best accomodates all the
varieties of mystical experience and best "protects" mystics and their hearers
from pantheism -- from which one may gather that she is a Christian, or anyway 
not a pantheist. 

She is fond of a three-fold taxonomy for mysticism.  Individual mystics, 
according to their temperament, tend to interpret their experiences in terms 
of intellect, feeling, or will.  Since most people have little or nothing in 
the way of mystical experience, language about it must be symbolic and 
metaphorical; the temperament of the mystic influences the symbols they use, 
and probably influences the character of the experiences themselves.

The intellective mystic describes the experience in terms of enlightenment vs 
illusion.  They tend to describe God impersonally, often as a place.  Their
approach, in a word, is transcendental and their central metaphor is that of
the quest. 

The emotive mystic describes the experience in terms of encounters with the 
Divine Person, in fact, as a courtship in which God flirts with, woos, 
betroths, and finally marries the soul.  Or the experience may be described as 
a schooling by God, with exercises, discipline, and graduation.  Whatever the 
metaphor, it is in the form of a personal relationship.  This form of
mysticism is most prone to imaginative or hallucinatory voices and visions.

The volitive mystic speaks less in terms of light and more in terms of fire
and heat.  Their imagery is more metallurgical and alchemical; the mystic life 
is a "refining" process, seeking to purge dross and purify spiritual gold.  
The Divine is spoken of, not as a place nor as a person, but as a substance or 
state, and is generally perceived as immanent more than transcendent.

Underhill freely acknowledges that actual mystics are seldom of one single, 
pure temperamental type.  Similarly, she describes an outline of mystical 
development but acknowledges that different mystics, such as St. John of the 
Cross or St. Teresa, give different outlines, and freely use different names 
for the same phases.  Her own outline is:  Awakening (Ch II), Purification (Ch
III), Illumination (Ch IV), Dark Night (Ch IX), and Union (Ch X).

She grants that it is schematized, but points out one feature as genuine and 
useful to note -- the steady oscillation between negative and positive phases.
These phases may intermingle, but at any given time, one usually predominates.

The other chapters in the second part take time out to detail features that
may occur at any point in the mystical life-cycle.  Recollection and quiet are
mental exercises directed toward achieving the state of contemplation. 
Ecstasy and rapture, on the other hand, just happen, bolts from the blue, and,
for instance, occasionally come to sustain souls going through the final
purges of the Dark Night of the Soul. 

Mystics distinguish at least three kinds of "voices and visions" -- purely
mental experiences that are voices or visions only by metaphor; actual words
and images occurring spontaneously and compellingly but within the imagination
and recognized as such; and finally genuine hallucination.  The mystics
themselves regard the hallucinations as the most suspect and least generally
valuable, though (1) they are, of course, the most interesting or at least
easiest to read about, and (2) it is quite otherwise, according to Underhill,
with prophets, who overlap but do not coincide with mystics. 

One can treat mystical experiences psychologically, as events occurring within 
the mystic, or metaphysically, as interactions between the mystic and the 
Divine.  Underhill does both, often within the same paragraph, occasionally 
within the same sentence.  She nowhere defines her idea of the relationship 
between God and the "Higher Self."

Earl Wajenberg

I had what I can only describe as an unusual dream last night...

I was given a parchment/scroll. A friend of mine points to a particular
line (there are many), which translates itself (or I'm suddenly able to read it).
During the 'translation' I'm able to read exactly what it says, in English
- after which I only understand what it means - "Be kind". Then I woke.

I 'felt' the message was not a request. It was also directed at me.

I'd speculate that since the parchment/scroll wasn't taken from me, that the
other messages will be revealed 'when the time is right'.

Given that I've been 'seeking' with a sense of urgency, it'll be interesting
to see what happens next...

Has anyone had any similar experiences? Any comments?

Now having doubts about doubts,
Pete.

    > any comments ?
    
    Part of a universal process of transition from expansion in our youth
    to inward-looking and contraction in middle life ?
    
    I remember that some of my experiences while 'seeking' were even
    seemingly paranormal.  My wife would hear disembodied spirit guides
    that had messages for me, which I seem to be either too dense or
    too skeptical to receive myself, even in dream symbolism !
    
    							todd

	Again, last night, another dream containing 'magic'.

	In this one I was being hunted through a strange city
	by a group of magicians.

	I've never experienced magic before (in real-life or in dreams),
	and I must admit, it's a very strange sensation.

Pete.

p.s.	I'm not sure, but is the use of magic to find someone/something
	known as 'scrying' ?