Conference hydra::dejavu

Most of the scepticism in this file is rather gentle and usually consists
of alternative explanations that one might consider.  The most recent
"attitude" case that I'm aware of actually involved bashing OF sceptics.

Also, scepticism need not involve the Scientific Method.  What's
threatening/objectionable about an attitude like: "Hmm, just what did happen?"

    

RE: .0

    > ...leads one of them to suggest that the VAX 8600 between his ears
    just "computes" the location of lost jewelry,... < 


Thank you, Bruce.  How generous of you not to have chosen, say, a PDP 11. 



    > Maybe it's just the smart-ass know-it-all tone in their notes that
    ticks me off (I'm sure this subjective judgment won't stand up to
    scientific scrutiny), but it seems that I'm not the only one. < 


It seems that you're not the only WHAT?

"Subjective judgment" is a contradiction in terms.  Perhaps your consternation
with "them skeptics" stems from such confusion.  What are you complaining
about anyway?  You *chose* this reality, remember?


This is one skeptic who can take all the bashing anyone cares to dish out.  I
much prefer discussion, however, and sincerely hope that you will not hesitate
to counter any logical flaws you might find in my, or any other skeptic's,
discourse. 


    >    In friendship/bruce  < 


Forgive my skepticism again...

John M.

         Though this is not really a "new" note (because we've been
    arguing about skepticism for quite some time now in other topics)
    maybe it's all right to have this note and subject brought up
    *one more painful time.*
         I spend a great deal of time writing about what Lazaris says
    (or, rather what I think he says) and very little of it saying what
    *I* believe.  Part of the reason is that my own thoughts are either
    incomplete or muddled so often.  What .0 and .1 are trying to say,
    I think, is that most of us want so very badly to have a complete
    understanding of what life is all about (and NOT all humans wish
    to know, as far as I can tell) and that once you think you have
    an answer, however complete, you (I) want confirmation from wherever
    it can be obtained.  What happens, though, is that usually (or 
    maybe just too often) what one gets is a dissenting point of view.
    This causes, in my case, at least, a great deal of anxiety and 
    frustration. [When someone wants comfort, they don't want someone
    telling him/her what a shit they are.]  So, after it builds up
    within for a while, it goes from smoldering heat to raging inferno.
    Thereupon we often observe the volcano that ensues.  This is too
    bad and not recommended (for clearly there are many other options)
    but it is a route very often taken.  It would be equally harmful
    to suppress that rage, however, so that is not a wise choice, either.
    So we get what we clearly observe here in this conference so often
    (a microcosm of the world at large.)  I am certainly not pointing
    any fingers here, for I have been just as responsible for some of
    these moves as anyone else.  I know I am not enlightened, though
    sometimes my ego attempts to tell me I am.  I know I am not
    unenlightened, though sometimes my ego attempts to tell me that,
    too.  I, like so many other beautiful souls in this conference,
    am just a traveler on the path.  No better and no worse.
    Perhaps because there is so much information available on the planet
    that we know we cannot assimilate, we add to our sense of despair.
    So where are we left?  
       Several months ago I read a note in these files from someone
    who had entered a lengthy, erudite reply.  Several weeks went by
    whereupon no one had counter-responded or acknowledged him.  He
    then entered a hostile note informing everyone that he was never
    going to enter another note again, for no one even thanked him
    for what he had done.  This, for me, is sad.  On many levels.
    If what we do here is strictly for our own validation and the
    source of that validation comes not from within for "doing" whatever
    we feel we want to, but instead is a validation that is coming
    from the pats on the back (or possibly, though much rarer, I think,
    from a masochistic search for disapproval) then my sense of it is
    that this has a false value.  If we do this to get attention (and
    I think all of us like attention, to some extent) only, then again
    I feel that this is not the best thing to be doing.  On the other
    hand, if this really is a way to find kindred spirits who offer
    us a modicum of love, at the least, with whom we can share some
    of our beliefs and experiences, who offer at least a small bit of
    patience, then I think a valuable human service has been rendered.
        I recently received a vaxmail note from a sometime noter who
    said that he was no longer going to participate in this conference,
    either.  He stated that the reason was that there were too many
    closed minds and too much dissention and not enough people were
    interested in what he had to say (which frankly, from my point
    of view, was highly developed philosophy and was offered from
    a very intelligent and understanding point of view.)  So, he has
    quietly dropped out.  
        Again, what is the answer?  Obviously no one wants to be attacked.
    Also, sometimes the attacker has no idea he/she is doing the
    attacking.  Ignorance and lack of understanding are not remiss,
    here, for certainly there is plently of both.  One of the most
    difficult steps to acknowledge in our growth is the dichotomy of
    accepting things as they are while at the same time wanting change.
    Yet I believe both are equally important.  With that, acknowledging
    that we have an impact on others and that they have an impact on
    us while at the same time trying to acknowledge (in my belief system,
    at least) that all of this reality is an illusion, is difficult,
    to say the least.  
        I have bounced the idea of my involvement in this conference
    around over and over since I began here.  It is still too muddy
    and unclear for me to have any firm answers for it.  The problem?
    What exactly am I accomplishing here?  Who, if anyone, is
    my involvement here having an effect on?  Am I coming from a negative
    ego need here (and there are many possibilites within this?)
    Is this only for my own chest-thumping (am I trying to impress someone
    or manipulate them or getting off on some sort of superiority trip?)
    Am I trying to teach?  If that's what I am doing, what's my motivation
    for that?  Again, is it to manipulate others, is it to get 
    validation for my own (if this is true) weak self-esteem?  
    When does what we do come from the heart and when does it come from
    our own [and I recognized that I still haven't defined adequately
    the negative ego] negative egos?  The answer, I think, can only
    come from within.  Am I (are you) coming from a sense of integrity?
    Do I (do you) feel a compassion for others who similarly have been
    hurt so many times in their lives?  Are we really willing to allow
    others to go their chosen paths or do we feel we must change them
    for their own good?  When do we talk and when do we listen?
    I wish I had more answers than I do.
         This much I do know, however.  When someone intrudes upon me
    in a manner that inhibits me somehow, then I need to find ways
    to diminish that impact.  As John very astutely (although I believe
    *cynically*) pointed out in .2, why are we creating a disharmonious
    reality?  I think there is a reason for that.  I further feel that
    sometimes we don't want to believe the possible or probable reasons.
    A need for punishment indicates a failure on my part for not choosing
    a positive alternative.  I believe that asking questions is very
    important for those of us seeking understanding.  When those whom
    we've labeled as skeptics attempt to slam us against the wall, then
    it is not only due to our particular "failure" to present our "cause"
    but perhaps it is also due to a lack of understanding on their part.
    As long as we are conditional lovers (which is what this all means)
    we expect actions and reactions, but not to get *beaten up* for
    our (perhaps) meager attempts at love.  So, from where I sit, I
    think that I will, while I "play" in this forum, make every effort
    to love others as much as I know how.  I hope that I can in turn
    encourage others to do similarly.  I know I have failed often to
    do this.  I feel that others, too, often fail to do so.  It is not
    fair to allow bullies to operate (and, in fact, the victim is much
    more able to change that reality than they often think) and I think
    most of us will continue to endeavor to disallow the "bullies."
    At the same time, though, I think we should all be willing to have some
    opposition to our views. It is difficult to remember that as humans,
    as I think .1 was saying, sometimes some of the participants are
    here only to the extent that they can be...for fear or whatever
    reason.  If they offend us too much, we can probably stop them.
    If they are too offended, they will probably leave.  Hopefully,
    those who read this and recognize even a glimmer of truth for
    themselves will make every effort to *tone down* the manner in
    which they express themselves (and again, I include myself.)
      
       
    Frederick
    

One of the reasons why DEJAVU is different from other notes files is 
because we know how tenuous reality can be, and so we must be more tolerant of 
the others who have yet to discover this most important fact.

Just as the skeptics of the world have to come half way and honestly evaluate
our experiences, so do we have to learn to stand our ground and not run away 
from the first signs of the resistance that we are all bound to meet in this 
time preceding the New Age.

I feel personally that the true danger lies in allowing oneself to be pushed
into reacting in a manner that is fundamentally opposed to one's basic beliefs
or philosophy.  I don't want DEJAVU to become another inflexible notesfile...
forbidding discussion, debate or controversy.  

We are all adults in this New Age we are approaching, and we must
find a way to work out our differences.  That means we must communicate with
each other and it is the atmosphere of tolerance and intellectual freedom that 
makes Dejavu the communication tool that it is.

Dejavu is special, and the quality of freedom and tolerance that makes it 
special for us must also make it special for everyone else, seeker and skeptic
alike. 

Mary

    Having been accused of being a skeptic, I suppose it's okay for
    me to respond.
    
    Re .0:
    
    >< Note 536.0 by ULTRA::LARU "do i understand?" >
    
    Perhaps, but perhaps not. :-)
    
    >*Maybe I just can't read,* but:
    >some of the skeptics who participate in this file seem unwilling
    >to accept these people at their word, and seem (to me) to always
    >attempt to cause these people to redefine their experience of
    >their own power. 
    >*That is the tone I feel* in their replies.
     
    One cannot argue  with feelings/impressions.  They might be right;
    they might be wrong.
    
>   ....  Rather, their responses *make me think they are
>saying,* "Nonsense!  There is no scientific theory that will
>accomodate that phenomenon.  There are no scientific instruments
>that can measure those phenomena.  I cannot duplicate your
>results. The odds are a zillion-to-one against that happening,
>therefore your experience is *obviously* not what you think it
>is."     
    
    Again, those are your impressions.  However, one could as likely
    substitute for the last sentence, "Since the happening is outside
    of known experience or theory, let's explore what might have happened
    from a variety of alternatives, including components of currently
    understood mechanisms."  "Might not be" what a person thinks a
    phenomenon isd is by no means the same as what "obviously isn't."
    
> ....Their insistence on using scientific method to define
>(not discover) "truth" leads them to invalidate any experience
>that they cannot experimentally replicate.  
    
    An experience is an experience: nothing can "invalidate" that. 
    the skeptic might try to _redefine_ the process, though.
    
    Re .1:
    
    Right on!
    
>Also, scepticism need not involve the Scientific Method.  What's
>threatening/objectionable about an attitude like: "Hmm, just what did happen?"
 
    Nothing objectionable; threatening only to those who are uneasy
    about having their beliefs held up to scrutiny.
    
    re .2:
    
>Thank you, Bruce.  How generous of you not to have chosen, say, a PDP 11. 

    Nothing wrong with PDP-11s, John (or PDP-8s either). :-)
    
>"Subjective judgment" is a contradiction in terms.
    
    Not really; all _judgement_ is subjective, based on experience,
    knowledge, world-view, and perspective.  "Subjective unbiased
    evaluation" would be such a contradiction, though.
    
    Re .3:
    
    > .........................................once you think you have
    >an answer, however complete, you (I) want confirmation from wherever
    >it can be obtained.  What happens, though, is that usually (or 
    >maybe just too often) what one gets is a dissenting point of view.
    >This causes, in my case, at least, a great deal of anxiety and 
    >frustration. [When someone wants comfort, they don't want someone
    >telling him/her what a shit they are.]   ...
    
    I don't think _any_ of the most hardheaded skeptic in DEJAVU has
    told anyone entering notes/responses here that she or he is a "shit,"
    either directly or otherwise.  Further, a Seeker after Truth is
    interested in Truth, not just "an answer."  "Thunder is caused by
    clouds bumping together," and "thunder is caused by the voice of
    demons," are both answers that have been used before Benjamin Franklin.
    They are "answers" to "What is thunder?" but neither happens to
    be right.
    
    >....if this [DEJAVU] really is a way to find kindred spirits who offer
    >us a modicum of love, at the least, with whom we can share some
    >of our beliefs and experiences, who offer at least a small bit of
    >patience, then I think a valuable human service has been rendered.
    
    True.  However, isn't there another alternative?  It may just be
    that DEJAVU enables us to share, explore, and evaluate paranormal
    experiences.  And that helps us understand both ourselves and each
    other better, and those are steps along the pathway to enlightenment.
    
    > ......................................................When those whom
    >we've labeled as skeptics attempt to slam us against the wall, ...
    
    When has that happened?  Maybe I'm being dense.
    
    >At the same time, though, I think we should all be willing to have some
    >opposition to our views.
    
    I think "opposition" is a bit harsh.  "Alternative explanations"
    is closer.  If A says, "I saw a ghost," and then describes it, and
    B comes along and says, "From what you say, it's more likely it's
    a demon masquerading as a ghost," and C says, "No, you had a clair-
    vouyant vision," and D says, "You had a telepathically projected
    image," you'll have thgree alternatives to A's comment.  But are
    B, C, and D _opposing_ A, or trying to place other (equally paranormal)
    interpretations on the event?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    Re: Steve, and everyone
    
    I don't think anyone is saying that skepticism and questioning should
    not happen in Dejavu.  The problem is arising from the "tone" of
    what's said.  I have very seldom objected to the way you (Steve) have
    expressed your skepticism or questions.  I have objected to the
    way you (John) have expressed yours at times.  I have never been against
    your right to say it.  I think this is where the problem is arising.
    Two people can say the exact same thing, and because of how they
    say it, others respond differently.
    
    If everyone would preface what they enter in here with "this is
    my opinion", or "this has been my experience", or "this is how I
    feel", we would have a lot more sharing and listening, and a lot
    less bickering.   
                   
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  I've never been accused of being a "skeptic", and it _is_
          okay for me to respond :-)
    

    I have modified the title of the base note slightly.
    The original could have been misinterpreted as an invitation
    to bash, which it was not.  My intention was only to discuss
    my interpretation of a couple of notes I recently read.
    
    Sorry for any confusion.
    
    	bruce

re: .6

I agree.  It's not the skepticism or opposition, it *is* the tone of some
entries.  I think that these discussions or debates would go alot smoother
if views were expressed without sarcasm or snide remarks.  It's hard enough
to deal with an opposing view.  :-)  I think we all should watch out for
other people's toes before we step down.  Written text isn't always interpreted
as meant by the writer.

		Dave

RE: .10
    
    Mary is absolutely correct.  While it is meaningful to talk about
    "objective judgement" -- meaning judgements which attempt to minimize
    the amount of subjectivity -- "subjective judgement" is *redundant*
    rather than self-contradictory.  Every "objective judgement" brings
    to it an immense (and I mean *immense*) quantity of subjective
    evaluation covering criteria, decisions about relevance of material,
    decisions among competing models on the basis of "elegance",
    philosophical preferences, linearity or lack thereof of the payback
    functions, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.
    
    There has been a war on for some time in statistics between the
    "classicists" and the "Bayesians".  The classicists want to exclude
    subjectivism from their procedures -- when pinned down, however,
    they admit that any use of the statistical procedures is subjective
    but the subjective elements enter *before* (in the selection of
    the test and of the parameters of the test chosen) and *after*
    (in deciding what to *do* with the results).  In contrast the
    Bayesians want to incorporate the subjectivism into the procedures
    in well controlled ways.  (Philosophically, I think, the Bayesians
    win, but in practice application of Bayesian principles is frequently
    quite hard).
    
    Worship of Objectivism is the ultimate form of subjectivism.
    
    					Topher
    

    Reply to .11; Topher,
    
    Wow! Can I quote you on that? That'll go great in SoapBox in "Son
    of Quote of the Day". B^) I can't wait...
    
    To all the rest, let's not take life so seriously, we'll never get
    out of it alive. B^) (I know, you've heard that before right?)

    re: -.1
    
    	I agree totally!!  Although *it's my opinion* that many
    	of us would like to, it's difficult to forget that we are
    	*human* for the moment, and there is no reason for using
    	sarcastic tones in dealing with each other.
    
    	An open hand can accomplish much more than a closed fist.
    
    					Carla

RE: .13 (Carla)

>   An open hand can accomplish much more than a closed fist.  <


Ah, but 'tis the closed fist that knocks upon the door!


John M.

RE: .14
    
    But only on the *closed* door.  The door is open here.
    
    					Topher

    Re .14, .15:
    
    And it takes an open hand to turn the knob (though not _completely_
    open; it has to grip the handle).    
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    gasp... glub,.. drowning in metaphorical euphemisms... 
    
    My kingdom for a satirical pun... If you guys don't stop this I
    will quote Vorgon poetry until the highway comes through.
    
    		THE FIST THAT POUNDS THE DOOR OF KNOWLEDGE
                JERKS AT THE SLIVERS OF MISUNDERSTANDING
                WHILE THE HANDLE OF COMPASSION
                TURNS WITH A SQUEAK OF REMORSE

        Aha,... you're all saved... here comes the demolition crew.
    

RE: .14 (Topher)
    
>  But only on the *closed* door.  The door is open here.  <


More like unhinged, I'd say.



Just Kidding!!



Satan made me say that.  PLEASE..... no Vorgon poetry or quotes about
doorknobs!  I'm sorry!

John M.

    I go away for 10 days to New Zealand come back for a couple of days,
    go on a two day course, then on the Roadshow for another three days.
    And what happens tempers become a little frayed...
    
    I do miss the jokes, I do realise this is a very special note,
    but the dry humour is right up my alley and I really need it at
    the moment.  I left a photo for my daughters, but they still don't
    recognise me.  My desk is overgrown, and I could sleep for a month......
    but John and company always come through.  
    
    *My feeling is* if you don't want to read a particular note or series
    of them, set next topic, note or next unseen.
    
    Some days I really want to read about everybody's experiences, others
    I reallly need to fall off my chair and laugh.  I am so far away,
    and as far as I know, there is nobody else in Aust in DEJAVU.  
    
    As much as I love reading John's replies, there are even days when
    I just pass over them, but I wouldn't miss this for anything.  
    
    Even having trouble putting two keys together, I think you get the
    gist.
    
    ...dale
    

Surely we all partake of this conference because we believe that the
world is larger than any of our explanations of it. Don't we?

Maybe someone should attempt to define scepticism before decrying/applauding
the state? Perhaps a sceptic is someone who is parsimonious with his belief.

John D.

Who should declare himself to be a sceptic (what are you yanks doing
to poor old english spelling?) who tries to approach the world with
love, optimism and an open mind.  

 :-)      (so that's what a smiley is!)

    re .20
    
    The issue is not parsimony, but rather what I see as a preference for
    acrimony instead of antiphony.
    
    	/bruce

       
    On doors, etc......
    
    Now that it has been established that the door is open and all are 
    welcome, how 'bout.....
    
    a few.....
    
                     H    H   U    U   GGGGGG   SSSSSS    !!
                     H    H   U    U   G        S         !!
                     HHHHHH   U    U   G  GGG   SSSSSS    !!
                     H    H   U    U   G    G        S    !!  
                     H    H   UUUUUU   GGGGGG   SSSSSS    .. 
     (:^)

    Re: .12
    
    To Quote a Tom Robbins Novel "I believe in everything, nothing is
    sacred.  I believe in nothing everything is sacred."
    
    Seriously, without skeptics to keep our feet on the ground, we might
    not learn anything.

    There is a difference between skeptics and hecklers. It is the hecklers
    in this conference that discourage my (and probably others)
    contributing. By destroying the continuity of a serious *discussion*
    they also make the NEXT UNSEEN tactic somewhat ineffectual.
    
    *As I see it*, many of the topics here involve phenomenon that has
    overrun our test instrumentation technology leaving only repeated
    human experience to support a hypothesis.  When we have people involved
    in discussions that will not accept repeated human experiences (except their
    own:-) as a point of verification, we can not get far in a discussion.
    
    Visualize world peace or **** off!
    (Drawing the line on this "mister nice guy" stuff) ;-)
    Thom 

RE: .23
    
    Thanks -- that felt GOOD!
    
    					Topher
    

    Hi.
    RE: .0, Bruce.
         "In friendship..."?
         What do you write like when you're not feeling friendly?!
    some of the stuff you had to say didn't sound all that friendly,
    to me.  It sounded ticked off.
    Mike

    re .29
    
    I don't think it's paranormal to experience negative emotions towards
    friends...

     My limited experience in DEJAVU tells me that:

     1.  People take their beliefs *very* personally.
     2.  People don't always write/read REPLYs as carefully as they  might.
         And...
     3.  People sometimes take REPLYs personally.


     It seems to me that some of the ugliest comments found in  this  notes
     file came about because of 2 and 3.

     I have been guilty about not being careful in writing  REPLYs,  but  I
     have  always  meant  to  direct  my  comments  at  the topic - not the
     individuals involved.  Needless to say, my intentions have not  always
     been  understood  -  some  of us, apparently, aren't clairvoyant (:^D.
     Being a self-avowed skeptic, I'm trying to keep my comments respectful
     and I'd hope others of my ilk would do likewise.

     Alvin

Actually, sceptics ought to be sceptical about their scepticism, hm?  :-)

John D.

    re .32
    
    right on, John...  and be especially skeptical about those things
    that are most generally accepted and most self-evident.
    
    	bruce

    
    And Peck says, "You must begin to doubt even your own doubt...as
    the path to holiness lies in questioning everything."
    
    (I wonder just what is going on there in the 'Cross A Crowded Room'
    topic...)
    
    Cindy

    re .34
    
    Cindy,  don't forget to question Peck!
    
    	bruce

    Cindy,

    Who is Peck?  That is a wonderful quotation.  It sounds like just the
    opposite of St Anselm, "I believe so that I may understand."

    Mike

RE: .37

    >  The trouble with reading some authors on spiritual matters is that
    their thoughts can inundate you--they're going on "fast forward" and
    you want to slow them down to "normal" speed, so you can evaluate their
    arguments step-by-step. < 


Now you know why some people have a problem with my replies.
                             


;-)

John M.

                              
    Re.35 on questioning Peck - Aye!  I have and I do.  And on November
          21st, I'll be attending an all-day seminar of his being held
          in Cambridge and hope to ask lots of questions.
                           
    RE. Who is Peck - There is a topic devoted to him that I started
        in this conference a while ago.  Find it by doing a dir/title=Peck.
                                              
    RE. On doubting - I think that Peck paraphrased that from Jung,
        however I can't remember where I saw that (perhaps in Jung,
        "The Unexplored Self").  The nice thing is that Peck is still
        alive and probably for a hefty sum would be quite happy to
        share a beer with you in your living room!
    
    And, well, John M. - he's just a laid back kinda' guy - you know them
    western US types!  (;^)
                                                  
    Cindy

    Forgot - for more of Peck's writings, also check out the "Religions
    and World Peace" topic - the first 4 notes or so.
    
    Cindy

    re: last few
      
         Also, there is an article about Peck in *PEOPLE* magazine.
    This is the Oct. 26. 1987 issue (with Glenn Close and Michael Douglas
    on the cover.)  The article begins on page 125.
      
     
     Frederick
    

    I am a visiting skeptic, I guess.  I wander into this file sometimes,
    but I don't have the opportunity to be a "regular".  
    
    I just want to mention that we skeptics don't read files like DEJAVU
    in order to find "victims" for attack.  Not enough time for that!
    Not enough malice.  We are, as someone said earlier, "Seekers After
    Truth", just as you who are believers profess to be.
    
    So, please, read through the sarcasm (an unfortunate personal style
    matter) and through the impatience to see whether skeptical comments
    don't reflect either alternate views or real human concern.  I,
    for one, am very troubled by a lot of the current "New Age" stuff
    in the media -- I don't want to run people's honest belief down,
    but I am completely convinced that much of the sudden explosion
    of channels and crystals and so on is a completely capitalistic
    attempt to drain the credulous of their money and support.  Who's
    who becomes an issue, but I worry that lonely and seeking people
    who maybe have shakey self-esteem (and I describe myself a few years
    ago as well as a PORTION -- not all -- of the readers of this file)
    are falling victim to the hype.  Traditional religion is more appealing
    to those in pain...so is fraud.  We WANT to believe, so we do, and
    we defend our belief even more rigorously than someone who quietly
    acts on deep-seated acceptances. That, however, doesn't mean we
    aren't making a mistake.)
    
    My request and caution, meant with love, is that even believers
    must be skeptical enough to examine the harsh realities of other
    'human beings' attempting to perpetrate a scam on you.  If you find
    something that works for you and doesn't actively harm anyone else,
    that's all that matters, I guess.  (Even if it is not "Truth" for
    anyone else.) Just be careful to evaluate new beliefs in case they
    do not work for you -- and forgive the skeptics who seem to flame.
    I think it is meant well, regardless of how itt comes across.
    
    Peace!
    
    Sherry
                  

    Your concern is appreciated Sherry but we are all professional adults
    here and most of us have spent many years evaluating ourselves,
    our reality, and the path we have chosen to follow.  We may not
    know exactly what we are doing_:-).... but we are doing what we
    *choose* to do.  Those who seek to win do not understand,... those
    who seek to understand cannot lose.
    Mary

    Re .43 (Mary):
    
    >Your concern is appreciated Sherry but we are all professional adults
    >here .... 
    
    Geez!  That's the first time I've been accused of being _that_.
    :-D
    
    >... I am completely convinced that much of the sudden explosion
    >of channels and crystals and so on is a completely capitalistic
    >attempt to drain the credulous of their money and support. ...  
    
    I don't entirely disagree with you; I have a note about charlatans
    many back, expressing this very concern, and what to look out for.
    
    >........... ............. We WANT to believe, so we do, and
    >we defend our belief even more rigorously than someone who quietly
    >acts on deep-seated acceptances. That, however, doesn't mean we
    >aren't making a mistake. 
    
    Doesn't mean we are, either.  Lots of us have spent years of study,
    and some of us have performed experiments to verify or disprove
    what we're investigating, often with mixed results.  A seeker after
    truth, as I've said many times, should have an open mind, but not
    so open his or her braions fall out.
    
    >............. Just be careful to evaluate new beliefs in case they
    >do not work for you .... 
    
    ...and even if they do.  But don't throw out the baby with the
    bathwater.
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    	I, too, appreciate the positively-expressed concerns and
    	assurances (?) in .42, but I still maintain that a flame 
    	is a flame is a flame, and a flame by any other name is 
    	still an attack on someone else's beliefs.
    
    	I respect views of skepticism and won't attack anybody for 
    	disbeliefs they might have.  To be quite honest, I go
    	through painful times of wondering if I'm full of dookey.  
    	But the bottom line is I'm not here to *defend* myself.  I 
    	don't think I've read many notes that say "This is the way 
    	it is and there are no alternatives."  We are all open to
    	new ideas and new approaches.  So if you *flame* and slam 
    	me to the ground I will simply get up and walk away from 
    	you.  (Excuse me while I hit you in the head with a brick,
        but I'm a peace lover!)
    
    	This conference is a highly personal forum for many of us,
    	and I think it's relatively obvious that we're not a bunch 
    	of mindless zomboids who blindly grasp on to to any idea 
    	posed to us.
    
    	So please, don't flame.  You'll be much better received if
    	you express your views and not launch them into my face.
    
    				Carla  (who_will_always_be_a_
    					confrontational_weenie)

    You can't win in expressing your beliefs.  If you are skeptical of your
    own beliefs, you considered wishy-washy and indecisive.  If you are
    firmly entrenched in your beliefs, then you are narrow-minded and
    stubborn.
    
    I believe in God.  This wasn't an easy decision to make.  There
    is no evidence that God truly exists, at least not _physical_ evidence
    like a phone number or something.  But in the same vein, there is
    no way to really disprove God either.  Therefore, it boils down
    to a personal decision as to what *I believe* --there's no _want_
    in this, it's a decision I had to make one way or another.
    
    In this notes file, we discuss ESP, OBE, Crystals, Reincarnation,
    and practices that could be considered magic in some societies.
    Do you believe?  Yes or no? (or DEC's term yes AND no ;-) )  We
    look at the evidence at hand, examine possibilities and choose how
    we want to stand on the issue.  Most of us are mature enough to
    admit at a future time that a decision is WRONG.  
    
    Being skeptical is alright, but one must learn to disagree without
    being disagreeable.  A skeptic may leave a "discussion" happy he said
    his peace, not caring that he stepped on a few toes while he was at it.
    No opinion will change from the heat of a flame.  One must learn tact
    if you really want to change opinion.  The first step is to learn
    respect, not only for the people involved, but also their *beliefs* as
    well. 
    
    Peace on Earth, and Good will to all.
    Dave

< Note 536.42 by UCOUNT::BAILEY "Corporate Sleuth" >
    
>                                                                I,
>   for one, am very troubled by a lot of the current "New Age" stuff
>   in the media -- I don't want to run people's honest belief down,
>   but I am completely convinced that much of the sudden explosion
>   of channels and crystals and so on is a completely capitalistic
>   attempt to drain the credulous of their money and support.

These are not new ideas (channels, crystals, etc.) but these ideas have
become recently popular.  There has always been and there always will be
people who take advantage of what is popular.  It is true that there are
quite a few capitalistic individuals making a killing but that does not
mean that it is "completely capitalistic".  People have been discussing
these topics in this file for a quite a while before the media got hold
of it.

		Dave

    
    I fail to see any difference between channels, crystals and the
    Pope, gold filled crosses, plastic Jesus figures, Mary lawn figures, 
    bingo, Holy Water, the PTL, Christmas presents, etc.  
    
    It is ironic, but the underlying message of religion and the New
    Age, I believe, the same.  It is Love. 
    
    Cindy

    	Good point, Cindy!!!
    
    					Carla
    

    Re: .48
    
    Yes, I second that.
    
    Re: .47
    
    And I also think you hit a nail on the head, Dave.  I became involved
    in esoteric study 10 years ago, and was going to the same bookstores
    I patronize now for my study materials, long before any of this
    became popular.  What the media presentations seem to say (to me)
    is that that suddenly, _this year_, everyone has run out and started
    studying astrology, wicca, shamanism, crystal work, channeling, para-
    psychological phenomena, etc.  And it just ain't so; many of us
    who contribute to this file have been studying these subjects quietly
    and finding the books and resources to do so for years.
    
    I think that the "popularity" of these subjects will indeed die
    out, as people who are only interested in what was all the current
    rage find new things to pursue.  Those of us who are serious students
    and seekers will still be studying and seeking.  The effect I hope
    the popularity has is that there will be a few more of us than before,
    and that the popularity will have allowed more of us like mind to
    find each other.
    
    Marcia

    Reply to .51, Mary,
    
    Just a nit, maybe a larger one than usual though. When looking at
    Nature we see a design _in_ Nature. Some insist that there is a
    design _of_ Nature, meaning that some intelligent force designed
    our little home. I think "in" is more appropriate then "of".
                                                               
    There is a fairly new science, springing from meterology, called chaos
    science or chaos theory. The latest NewsWeek (Time?) has a blurb on it.
    Basicly the theory states that patterns, differning in scale, appear to
    be random but patterened at the same time. Basicly an order, pattern or
    design of a different kind is presented "in" Nature/Chaos. 
    
    I've sat in Nature all my life and it seems to me that God is a poor
    noun substituted for Nature. Oh well, so much for bigtime theories.
    B^) 

RE: .52
    
    Although some of the earliest work *recognized as such* came out
    of Lorenz's meteorlogical work, it is very misleading to say that
    Chaos Theory came out of meteorology.  It is such an exciting area
    specifically because it finds so much common ground in so many
    areas, tying together odds and ends long left dangling in multiple
    specialties.  Even the meteorlogical work was interdisciplinary
    since Lorenz was attempting to tie meteorology directly into its
    physical basis in fluid dynamics and the classical gas laws.
    
    					Topher

RE: .55
    
    That's a bit harder to answer than it sounds.
    
    I believe that Lorenz invented the Lorenz differential equations
    of state (by the way, this Lorenz is not the same Lorenz as involved
    with the history of relativity) in the early sixties.
    
    There has been a dawning realization over the last 15 years or so
    of the philosophical importance and the practical generality of
    the field.
    
    There is lots of work in various areas, originally thought to be
    rather specialized, which is now seen as part of the "big picture",
    which is quite old -- much of it from the turn of the century.
    
    					Topher

    Time to get a little note off my chest.  I am probably a serious
    skeptic (maybe not so serious {;-)  Anyway here's my contribution:
    
    I don't like *I* as much as some of you do.  People are constantly
    saying things like "*I* saw", "*I* felt", etc.  I get the feeling
    that they take themselves as the center of the universe.  I like
    to think of myself as a test instrument in the experiment of life.
    This means I can only accept my experiences through my 5 (or more)
    sensors (or senses).  This input can only be processed on by my
    brain.  This process is so fraught with error that I am trying to
    do constant error correction on my incoming data just to break even.
    
    Let me embellish with a short experience.  When quite young I was
    doing a puzzle book.  I came upon one that stuck with me.  It was
    simple in principle.  On the first page was a picture of a crime
    scene.  You were to look at that picture for 10-15 seconds and then
    turn to the second page to answer questions on the picture.  Well,
    I did not do well.  Maybe I am slow, but it seems to me memory of
    an incident is seriously time dependent.  Both in initial absorption
    as well as in retention.  So if you say you only saw something for
    a short time, or a long time ago, I may seriously doubt you.
    
    How about eyes?  My most distrusted sense.  (You know what the least
    dependable form of evidence is in trials?  Visual identification.)
    This is pretty easy to show.  Next time there is a full moon out,
    go out and observe it rise.  BIG mother isn't it?  Go outside and
    look at the same moon a couple of hours later.  Pretty small now
    isn't it.  The eyes are easily fooled.
    
    What I am saying is; if I have trouble believing my eyes and memory,
    don't ask me to readily accept what you *saw* and *remember*.  What
    you saw is open to other interpretations.  What you remember is
    open to question (lawyers are professionals at tripping up witnesses
    with their own memories).  Some of what you remember is dependent
    on how long the phenomenon was experienced and how well you remember
    it over time.
    
    I don't want this to deter anyone from contributing their experiences
    to this note.  I find the related experiences totally absorbing.
    I just wanted to explain the root of my skepticism.
    
    Stan

    
    
    RE. 59
    
    In the words of Leo Buscaglia....
    
    "My experience of my experience is my experience of my experience,
    and your experience of your experience is your experience of your
    experience, and my experience of your experience is my experience
    of your experience, and your experience of my experience is your
    experience of my experience"....:-)
    
    No one can ever totally put themselves in anyone elses shoes.  
    However, the only way we can learn about each other is to share
    experiences.  Thanks to all who have done so!
    
    Carole
    

    re .59, stan...
    
    *I* don't really understand what *you* are trying to say...
    
    Do *you* want to interpret *my* experiences for *me* and
    tell *me* what *I* experienced?  
    
    Just because individual experience is at variance with consensus
    reality doesn't invalidate either the experience or the reality.
    Experience is.  There is no objective reality.  All information
    is filtered, through our senses, through the media, through
    societal expectations, through scientific dogma, through religious
    dogma, etc...   My reality will always be different from every
    other individual's reality and from the consensus reality.
    
    *I* am the process resulting from the interaction of a zillion
    other processes, as are the zillion other processes.
    
    What pronoun do *you* want *me* to use?
    
    
    	`bruce

 It was a wise septic who said "Those who test truths for absolute
certainty have few false truths,they also have few true ones". ;^)

                      George D.   

The realm of possibilities are infinite.  We humans know little to be 
absolutely certain.

I think; therefore, I am.  The more possibilities that my mind conceives, the 
broader is my base of knowledge.  The broader that is the base of my knowledge, 
the more open I am to accepting ideas of yours.

    re: .60 (Carole)
    
    Couldn't have said it better myself.
    
    re: .61 ('bruce)
    
    I am not trying to get you to do anything.  I was trying to work
    up to explaining why I am the way I am.  I have no problem with
    you being the way you are.  Free will to all.  I am free to doubt,
    as you are free to believe.  
    
    I am just trying to point out that *I* is not perfect.  Also a person
    who does not question his senses and his memory is assuming perfection
    where none exists.  (donning flak jacket before continuing :-)
    
    Maybe my problem is that I am as psychic as a brick.  I honestly can 
    think of no instances I would attribute to anything but coincidence, 
    physical processes, or explainable circumstances in my life.  Am I 
    missing something?
    
    re: .62 (George D.)
    
    Ayup.  This allows me to doubt much of what I believe and believe
    much of what I doubt.  Doubting and believing are not necessarily 
    mutually exclusive.
    
    Stan