Conference hydra::dejavu

I don't have any ideas about what is causing this but I have felt
  some similar things.  One thing that I sometimes get is once
  I've gotten into the alternate mode of thought my senses seem
  to be heightened.  Not only am I able to hear, see, feel better
  than I normally can, but things actually seem to look different,
  though I can't explain how.  Also I seem to be more in tune with
  psychic activity in the area.  I can sometimes make some predictions
  on whatever the universe wants me to know (I can rarely ask specific
  questions).  
  
  >>  It did take about 3 minutes to come out of this state of mind
  
  Really Mike?  Only three minutes???  I find this situation almost
  impossible to get out of in any reasonable period of time.  My
  internal dialog goes something like
  
  "It's time to get going"
  
  "I don't really want to"
  
  "If I don't I'll be late for/miss ______"
  
  "It's not that important"
   
  "Come on, let's come back to reallity"
  
  "NO"
  
  This type of dialog goes on for anywhere from 15 minutes to two
  hours.  Afterwords, if I've gotten particularly deep, my though
  processes seem to be altered for a number of days.  Even my friends
  and co-workers notice a difference.

	It sounds to me like you have slipped into Transcedental
Meditation (TM).  If that is the case then the brain wave pattern
will have changed substantially.  TM is now considered to be the
fourth major state of consciousness by many psychologists, the four
states being:

	. Waking conciousness
	. Dreamless sleep consciousness
	. Dreaming consciousness
	. TM consciousness

Many people do TM 'accidentally' while in deep relaxation, as it is
a natural process.

Dave.

  Ok.. I have more info on what is happening to me (maybe you too).
  
  It seems that in normal waking consiousness I think with the
  forepart of my brain.  Maybe it's just that I think with my whole
  brain.  Anyway it feels that way.  After relaxation for about
  20-30 mins I feel this change.  The change feels like a heavy
  rolling from the front part to the rear part of the brain (maybe
  the cortex?).  This rolling feeling is facinating to me because
  I can feel it starting, building, and ending.  Really neat stuff.
  
  After the relocation of thoughts (it's really not a relocation
  of thoughts it is a closing off of the forebrain I think) I have
  noticed a pronounced effect I have termed "flaging".  This feels
  like my body is waving in the air.  Could this be the etheric
  body begining to move?  Sue you have had this experience.  Kathern
  why does it take you so long to get out of it???
  
  I also let it proceed and got two more rolling events that seemed
  to deepen the experience.  It got pretty boring after that so
  I came out and went to sleep.  Thanx for the comments.
  

  RE .4
  
  I can usually get out of it in a reasonable period of time when
  I am only lightly under.  The length of time it takes to get
  out are proportional to how deep I am under.  I think that .3
  has part of the right answer - it's something like hitting the
  snooze alarm repeatedly.
  
  As for the residual effects they too are proportional to how
  deep I was under, but not entirely.  I have no motivation to
  try to stop them since they are some of the most pleasant feelings
  I can think of having.
  
  /Kathleen

  RE .4 
  
  Sounds like the same experiences Bob Monroe described in his
  first book, Journeys Out Of the Body.  Instead of just being
  bored, try thinking of someone you'd like to visit, that should
  liven things up. 

A Cautionary re .0 and .4:

It seems to me that you are making an error which I am very prone to myself:
confusing levels of description.  In particular I think that you are in
danger of confusing the neurological part of the scientific level of
description with the subjective experiential level.

In theory it is possible to draw correspondences between these two levels:
"when I feel this the following is happening in my brain."  In practice it
is very difficult.  This is because

    o the correspondences are almost *never* the direct obvious ones,

    o very, very little is known by anyone about these correspondences,
      even by the scientists who study them,

    o what is known, tends to get badly distorted and over generalized when
      translated into "lay" descriptions,

    o there is a great deal of individual differences in what is experienced
      under the "same conditions": what is experienced as a bright white light
      by one person is experienced as a loud buzzing by another,

This type of confusion happens very easily when we deal with ASCs (Altered
States of Consciousness).  The problem here is that the CRSC (Consensus
Reality State of Consciousness), which may be partially active during the ASC
and will certainly be active when we try to remember it later, does not have
proper referents for what was experienced.  The referents are part of the
ASC's reality not the CRSC's reality.  Metaphors are frequently invoked,
which is fine -- but then it is forgotten that they are metaphors, which can
be a serious mistake.

Also, their is a tendency to try to make our experience more "real" (within
the CRSC framework) by attaching "scientific explanations" to it.  This is a
natural tendency, but it should be resisted since it, ultimately, will
interfere with *true* understanding, both of the ASC and of the scientific
viewpoint (which is related to the CRSC but is not the same).

I have posted (topic 76.0) a metaphor which is useful in talking about (and
thinking about -- at least for me) what is going on when we experience an
ASC.  I'll assume in the rest of this that you have read it.

Brainwaves are not really explanations for anything, they are signs of things.
To try to explain a feeling as being due to a "brainwave" is pretty closely
analogous to explaining a bend in a road as being "caused" by the yellow sign
with the arrow on it which comes just before the bend itself.

Furthermore, brainwaves are very ambiguous signs.  Very different internal
states may look the same as far as brainwaves are concerned.  For example,
deep hypnosis is the same as far as brainwaves are concerned as an ordinary
relaxed waking state.  There are some who say that therefore hypnosis is the
same as waking.  This is, I think, silly.  It is different because it is
*experienced* as profoundly different, and because it normally results in very
different behavior.  The indistinguishability of the two states to an EEG
is an indication of the ambiguity of the brainwaves, not an indication of
the identity of the states.

Using biofeedback we can learn to recognize some ASCs which are not too far
from the CRSC, and which cause instruments to record particular brainwaves.
This is useful if that ASC is useful.  We do not, however, actually feel the
brainwave itself, and we may well misidentify a very different ASC as "having"
or "not having" that brainwave.  What anyone (neurologists included) knows
about the "meaning" of brainwaves is limited to a very few, common states of
consciousness.

We tend to place the seat of consciousness subjectively in the "forebrain"
because we are visually oriented culture and that is where we are seeing
from: just behind the eyes.  Some other cultures, and some people in
our culture, do not do this.  They will place the subjective seat of
consciousness elsewhere, and frequently it is not anywhere near the brain.

When we enter an ASC many of our cognitive habits, as well as the reasons
those habits became established in the first place, tend to shift.  The case
in point: where your consciousness "feels" like it is located.  This shift
may be abrupt (for reasons discussed in note 76.0) and may be accompanied by
quite intense sensations.  The shift represents something quite real, and may
be important,  but it is not itself "real" in the CRSC sense.  A close
analogy is the change in body image that also frequently accompanies shifts
to ASCs.  The fact that, say, your legs *seem* 10 feet long is true, and may
mean something important about who you are at that moment.  But your legs
aren't "really" (CRSC again) 10 feet long.

Your consciousness is always distributed throughout your entire brain.
Statements about us "only using 1/10 of our brain" and so on, are out of date
and no longer believed by scientists to be true.  If we break up (analyze)
consciousness into a particular bunch of functions then some of these
functions are associated with particular areas of the brain.  This is a
valid process for some purposes, e.g. studying the effects and treatment of
physical or chemical brain damage.  It is NOT the right process for other
purposes.  In particular, it is not right for studying the experience of
being our Self.  If analysis is the right tool for that at times (e.g., as
in note 76.0), the right pieces for that purpose are likely to be very
different than the right ones for studying the brain.  However, we analyze
it, the Self is all the pieces at once, not the pieces taken separately.

The important thing is to try to understand the experience of an ASC in its
own terms, or at the very least in terms of what you've *experienced*.
Trying to attach labels like "brainwave", "alpha-wave", "forebrain" and
"left-hemisphere" can only get in the way of really understanding your
experience.  It will also get in the way of really understanding what those
terms mean (which is, as I've said,  about a very different level of reality
from the experience itself).

If a scientific article reports that a particular neurological event was
accompanied by reports from the subject of "their bodies feeling like they
were waving in the air" then you would be justified in speculating that
you had experienced the same thing.  Descriptions of feelings, however,
capture so little of the experience itself that you could only *speculate*,
not *conclude*.

Also remember that popular article about this area, even very scientifically
oriented popular articles, tend to be misleading about how much is known
and what it all means.  Its as if scientists from Mars had dropped two
spacecraft on Earth and picked up a little sand from the Gobi and some snow
from Antarctica and are trying to get a picture of the whole Earth from it.
Most (but, unfortunately, not all) scientists know how limited their knowledge
is, but this tends to get ignored in popular treatments.

			Topher

          In response to .7 and Mr. Topher:

            I don't think that I am in error of mixing levels of
          description at all.  The descriptions that I gave are the
          only tools I have to express an event that only I
          experience.  Others may experience something simular and
          express it differently.  So what?  You may ask "How then
          will you compare notes accurately with anyone else?"  I
          don't know and I don't really have a need to define a system
          of terms or meanings for experiences that I may be having
          soley.

           If it appears that I am confusing neurological, scientific
          and subjective terms then I will state that it was not my
          intention to postulate a "scientific" theory.  When you only
          gotta' mule and plow, you use a mule and plow.  That is the
          reason we have communication capabilities.. To be able to
          describe a person, place or thing and have another entity
          understand (to whatever extent necessary).  How would you
          describe my (attmitedly) minor experience?  Do you think
          that Sue and Kathern would be inclined to use your tools
          also?

            As for attempting to make my expirence more real... How
          preposterious!  It's real already.  I don't need another
          person or group of persons to form a consensus for me.  If I
          were that way I would have stayed a "Born Again Christian"
          and not left the saftey fof the fold.

            I agree that brain waves are signposts of other events.
          The reason I asked was because I am fairly ignorant of
          EEG's, brainwaves and what they represent.  I do know that
          different brain waves can represent vastly different things.

            When I gave reference to forebrain and cortex I was using
          a subjective discription of what I felt.  As for not being
          able to feel what part of the brain I am using... I may not
          be able to.  What I am able to do is preceive something that
          most people may not be able to.  That is to be able to feel
          when there is a change in my subjective state.  This also
          includes being able to read some of the road signs that I
          come to along the way.  Isn't that what we are trying to do?
          Aren't we trying to explore our (for lack of a better term)
          bounderies?

            As for being justified in speculating that I may have had
          a experience because I have read about it in a scientific
          article or journal...  B.S.   I don't need a article or
          journal to let me know that I have had a projection of
          consiousness because they still don't accept the fact that
          humans are more than a physical body.  What I can use is a
          spark to get me on the way.

            Mr. Topher, I would like to thank you for your comments
          and ask a few questions so that we all may get a better
          understanding of where you are coming from.

            1.  Have you had a significant ASC?
            2.  Have you had a significant ASC that you can state
          fully with confidience that it was a valid ASC?
            3.  Do you trust yourself to explore your universe?
            4.  Do you trust youreslf to explore your universe both in
          and out of body?
            5.  Just because one person dosen't see or understand a
          ASC does it mean that the ASC isn't real?
            6.  Can you really discover anything about the self with-
          out looking at individual pieces of the self?
            7.  Do you think that consiousness resides in the brain,
          body or somewhere else?

            There is a real need for study, clarification and
          discussion of ASC's.

            I understand that you were stating that we shouldn't
          confuse terms because that would lead to wierd claims and
          irrational statements.  These statements may lead other
          people astray and hurt them inadvertantly.

            I know that I physicaly don't float around my bedroom.
          That dosen't mean that my (etheric or astral or whatever
          segment or part description you may care to use) dosen't.

            I fully agree that we don't know a whole lot about ASC's.
          That's why we have notesfiles and different perspectives for
          just about every event and experience in life.

                            Thanx for the comments.

                                   Mikie.

    .8
    
    Right on!!!!!!!!!!!  Affirm - Affirm.
    
    Alison
    

  I'm not sure if I should enter this here or start a new base
  note, so here goes.  
  
  Has anyone been asleep AND in an ASC at the same time?  This
  happened to me, I got under fairly deep (sort of as I described
  in .1) then fell asleep.  This was almost an impossible situation
  to get out of - kind of a double "Snooze alarm" effect.  I would
  drift back to reality, decide I didn't like it and go off again.
  This continued for about 15 hours until my SO decided I should
  at least get up and eat something.  Even so, It took a long time
  for him to get me talking to him and then he got a lot of "I'm
  not hungry.  Go away.  Let me alone."
  
  When I finally did get back to reality I was still tired (believe
  it or not).  Not a bad experience though really. 
  
  I'm just curious if this has ever happened to anyone else.  I'm
  also kind of curious about what would have happened if my SO
  hadn't been there. 
  
  Thank God for weekends!
  /Kathleen