Extra-Human Conciousness

[Tao_Equus]

Well, I never rule out that I might just be very imaginative....

An imagination built upon your natural inquisitiveness and intelligence.... without them you'd not be very imaginative at all

.... This is partly why I haven't bothered with explanation so much as experience. I do know that it is a two-way street because they respond to me. I've had the experience where even elements sometimes respond to my energy and focus (notably air, but I suspect fire and water won't be too far off once I work with them more).

I am sorry but I feel that if you spent a bit more time studying cause you would find that there are more mundane, obvious explanations. When people like you go in for testing they score less than 0.2% better than Josephine Average. Though using these tests we are all mildly psychic. You can ask it as do we have a sense(s) hidden out of concious perception? We do I think. But statistically there is only a tiny tiny variance from one person to the next. I think it would be easy for you to build a model that shows it is a combination of knowledge and imagination that creates a register of positive hits, and that you ignore the negative ones. It is all too easy to build a false feedback loop in that situation.

I do recommend Tao of Equus-

All right, all right I ordered one already !

The remaining trees are affected, and I can feel this- it does approximate shock for them as well, and a sort of deep sorrow.

Damn I already feel like a bubble burster but my experience is totally different. In a standard density mature woodland when a tree comes down life kicks into overdrive. The light created in the glade when a tree is removed is like an immediate excitement, anticipation of new growth. Whether the sudden increase of photons hits other mature trees or forest floor the growth is immediate, and there is a whole host of dying things feeding it. And it is a race....pure survival of the fittest to compete for these energy giving particles. There is great beauty in this battle to dominate but it is in no way reflects the fluffy musings we can afford ourselves at the top of every food chain.

It's worth saying that I don't think any of it is "supernatural," really. .... I don't really believe in a supernatural, when it comes down to it.

I have a little malevolent streak in me and unlike CZ refuse to try and curb it... thanks for that... I'm sure I'l quote you before too long

As for usefulness of being an empath, I struggle with this as well. Not all is roses and feelings of connection with all life, you know?

Yes. The real fluffy moments are rare and to be savoured. Mostly we are too busy just surviving as best we can. And none of us survives long.

I started writing another thing last night that started as a response to Native but got interrupted and saved to file. I need to try and get that up here tomorrow. It is on the whole education/language dynamic in nature.

 

[iBrian]

In a standard density mature woodland when a tree comes down life kicks into overdrive.

Indeed, but there are various scientific experiments that have established that at least some species of plants can communicate among themselves that they are under attack, stimulating the production of tannins and similar repellents in nearby plants in anticipation of attack.

Afraid can't find the New Scientist coverage (I'm sure this is pretty old) so here's a couple of pointers:
Plants Communicate to Warn Against Danger | LiveScience
Plants Can Recognize, Communicate With Relatives, Studies Find

 

[path_of_one]

I am sorry but I feel that if you spent a bit more time studying cause you would find that there are more mundane, obvious explanations. When people like you go in for testing they score less than 0.2% better than Josephine Average. Though using these tests we are all mildly psychic. You can ask it as do we have a sense(s) hidden out of concious perception? We do I think.

I never claimed to be super-psychic. I think I'm probably more sensitive than most in terms of empathy, but I'm nothing overly special and I haven't dedicated a huge amount of time to practice either. Of course, I don't approach my spiritual life in terms of experimental rigor- I just don't care enough about the explanation or statistics of it for myself, and it's not like it'd be useful professionally or practically for others, so I am fine with more vague ideas about how it works and if it works. I've already admitted that I enjoy a magical, spiritual, enchanted world. It's more fun for me, more enjoyable, more interesting. I like to let my imagination run amok in my personal life. So I'm perfectly content to work with elements and such as if they are spiritual forces- it's too much fun to stop, whether or not this or that study says it makes any difference.

Damn I already feel like a bubble burster but my experience is totally different. In a standard density mature woodland when a tree comes down life kicks into overdrive.

I'm not talking about the ecosystem in general, but the trees of similar age that are left, if any. The loss of mature old growth stands is a heavy loss for those left behind, and for the Earth as an entity. While new growth may spring to fill the gap, that doesn't replace the beings that had been there before, particularly as plants seem to gain personality as they age. Hard to explain what I mean here, but I gave it a shot.

And Brian, I've heard of similar studies to what you are talking about.

I have a little malevolent streak in me and unlike CZ refuse to try and curb it... thanks for that... I'm sure I'l quote you before too long

I have to toss you a bone for future use sometime or other. But I have explained my views before, and I think I am consistent. I have a very natural view of the Divine/God, of life in general, of magic, etc. I think Druidry is entirely consistent with an earth-centered, natural spirituality. The use of a mythical and magical framework is path toward meaning and personal and collective growth, not a news report. I maintain the usefulness of myth and magic, not any particular supernatural explanatory model for it as the end unto itself. Guess you could say I'm not a naturalist or materialist, but not sure what you'd call me in terms of philosophical leaning.

 

[path_of_one]

I very much believe that whatever we may sense or perceive in the world, the mind will inevitably act as a filter, not least to render what we perceive into something we can better understand and comprehend.

I think this is absolutely the case. This is why I tend to work on understanding what is useful or practical that comes from my spiritual experiences rather than just the content itself. I approach myth/scripture the same way. We can't escape our cultural conditioning, our basic personality and learning style and intelligence, or our cognitive limitations and structures that are in all human brains. We're hard-wired, for example, to attribute personhood to everything. Of course, it will probably always be a mystery if this is because everything actually has personhood/sentience or if it is because it helps us in some way. Remembering cognitive limits and cultural conditioning helps one be more tolerant of others and more open to learning from a variety of viewpoints.

I think this often comes up when people refer to spirit guides, personal angels, past live mentors, and similar. I suspect a deeper process is at work, but one that is too unintelligible for the human mind to ordinarily comprehend, hence reduction of the experience into something more anthropomorphic, therefore comprehensible.

I would agree. I've had a few experiences with very non-anthropomorphic entities, more like being part of a process, and it was mind-blowing. I still can't really "wrap my head" around it. It changed me, but I've yet to really integrate it fully. It's just too strange, too foreign. However, they still had profound effects on how I viewed God/Divine, myself, all beings really.

I don't tend to see empathic experience in images, but I have noted it more with animals, perhaps because it is more difficult for us to directly understand the communication, so some part of our being perhaps redacts it into a more comprehensible experience we can react to. I'm not sure if that makes sense to you, PoO?

Yes. I don't think I see images because they are the only or primary thing sent, but rather because that is how I process the information given. I may be missing whole chunks of stuff that would come through as sound or whatever else in a more auditory person. I happen to be very visual in how I process information, so it isn't surprising that this also is how I translate more complex stuff I pick up from other beings.

And yet what a wonder it would be to see the world through all of the spectrum - and yet how confusing and difficult to understand it would be!

Agreed. I once had a dream in which I shape-shifted into a canine. Who knows if that's what it is actually like, but wow- what a crazy experience. Not only was the angle and height different, but how I actually saw things, what the world looked like, and the dominance of smell and hearing, which I never have in ordinary waking life. And of course a totally different sensation of locomotion. Very interesting.

Here's a little thought experiment - next time you look at people, imagine they are surrounded by many tiny lines extending out and returning upon themselves, a little like a plasma ball if you will. Now do that the next time you walk down the street, and also imagine that every time you are looking at someone, that some of your own force lines from your own bio-field touches theirs directly. Now observe how many of those people you look at in that way suddenly glance around, straight at you.

Yeah, I've found a few handy visualizations that help in my particular case. I picture a sort of cloud of energy around me and each being. When I want to enhance empathy or "push" someone else emotionally, I basically reach out with this cloud toward their cloud, usually thorax to thorax. If I want to receive or send particular images, it is forehead to forehead. The visualizations have nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm actually doing (whatever that really is!) but I just find them useful for focusing my intent. There's more that I think is possible in terms of working energy (draining, healing, etc.), and more types of whatever this energy is than just from living beings (i.e., one can also open up to the earth as a whole, to stars, etc.). All that goes way over into the deep end of these ideas, and I realize I might sound nuts, but why stop now? LOL

 

[Tao_Equus]

Indeed, but there are various scientific experiments that have established that at least some species of plants can communicate among themselves that they are under attack, stimulating the production of tannins and similar repellents in nearby plants in anticipation of attack.

Afraid can't find the New Scientist coverage (I'm sure this is pretty old) so here's a couple of pointers:
Plants Communicate to Warn Against Danger | LiveScience
Plants Can Recognize, Communicate With Relatives, Studies Find

Yes...biological warfare is an old game. Nature does incorporate symbiosis but it tends to be the exception, mostly its dog eat dog race for survival.

Back to your longer post above... during my experimentation with fungus borne alkaloids, to which I applied the same observational method I tend to apply to everything, I have gone a good deal of the way to persuading myself that we do see wavelengths of light, and hearing sound, that are ordinarily filtered out of our conciousness. The sight aspect of it is especially useful at dawn or dusk when there is less light.

But even if I am right I would maintain that far more important to our perception is our experience. Sight has in many experiments been shown to be not a constant flow of new images hitting the brain, like frames of film, but a mental construct that only changes what has changed in the frame. Most of the image not in focal highlight is memory, not image. The gorilla suit experiment shows that even with moving images we can miss what we should notice straight away. I think it easy to underestimate just how reliant we are on experience and learning. Again experiments have shown, in footballers for example, that you only need a tiny glimpse to be able to make extremely accurate predictions of where a ball will go. They make these predictions based on experience and do so unconsciously, already moving in the correct direction a few micro-seconds before brain activity begins to correlate more precisely.

PoO has already stated that she is not interested in seeking causal explanations. But I believe in every case they are there and are fairly simple to find. And that they are invariably externalisations or exaggerations of our own perceptions. I have been in regular contact with an Alzheimers victim recently... the brain has the capacity to see a very different reality that this disease brings into stark highlight. But the ability to conciously or unconciously manipulate external cues to fit a favoured set of ideas is in all of us... we all do it...all the time. The longer and the more habituated you become to an idea the more time you have to 'score' the positive hits, and ignore the negatives. Evidence that would seem fragile on its own takes on a significance dissproportianate to its actual value. When you start mixing that with human conceptual cognition based on years of schooling it is all too easy to get lost in what is really a kind of narcissism... when you feel an animal understands you or you it.... it feels great! You are pleased, even euphoric, but it is just natural behaviour. All animals give out cues anyone or any other animal can pick up.

 

[iBrian]

I think this is absolutely the case.

I really like the way we approach the spiritual in generally similar ways, and despite quite different and personal experiences, are seeing the same picture emerging.

I would agree. I've had a few experiences with very non-anthropomorphic entities, more like being part of a process, and it was mind-blowing.

Oh, boy - isn't it.

Agreed. I once had a dream in which I shape-shifted into a canine. Who knows if that's what it is actually like, but wow- what a crazy experience. Not only was the angle and height different, but how I actually saw things, what the world looked like, and the dominance of smell and hearing, which I never have in ordinary waking life. And of course a totally different sensation of locomotion. Very interesting.

Sounds amazing - never had that sort of experience - must have been quite mind-expanding.

Yeah, I've found a few handy visualizations that help in my particular case. I picture a sort of cloud of energy around me and each being. When I want to enhance empathy or "push" someone else emotionally, I basically reach out with this cloud toward their cloud, usually thorax to thorax. If I want to receive or send particular images, it is forehead to forehead. The visualizations have nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm actually doing (whatever that really is!) but I just find them useful for focusing my intent.

Excellent tip - thanks for that.

When in circumstances that could feel tense or awkward, where I absolutely didn't want to project this myself, I'd mantra "Peace, love and harmony" in my head. The aim was to simply try and calm my own emotional projection, so as not to antagonise a situation.

All that goes way over into the deep end of these ideas, and I realize I might sound nuts, but why stop now? LOL

All sounds perfectly normal to me - it's been great to be able to discuss at least some of it with you so far.

 

[iBrian]

PoO has already stated that she is not interested in seeking causal explanations. But I believe in every case they are there and are fairly simple to find. And that they are invariably externalisations or exaggerations of our own perceptions. I have been in regular contact with an Alzheimers victim recently... the brain has the capacity to see a very different reality that this disease brings into stark highlight. But the ability to conciously or unconciously manipulate external cues to fit a favoured set of ideas is in all of us... we all do it...all the time. The longer and the more habituated you become to an idea the more time you have to 'score' the positive hits, and ignore the negatives.

Oh, I quite agree it's a danger, and I think it has to be an important concern in spiritual development to remain open to possibilities, avoid absolutes, and ensure the process of learning is ongoing - otherwise it's not development anymore and the path of learning has ceased to be walked.

Here's the thing though - a lot of the spiritual development is gained precisely because of the lack of bias in the first place.

Much of my own learning took place in 1996, after a depression that took away my preconceived ideas of the world - unlearning my perceptual set. After, it was literally like relearning the world all over again.

That meant that when going through spiritual experiences, rather than trying to pigeon-hole them, they were left as open-ended questions. It's only by going through a number of experiences, without trying to explain them, that they start to look like parts of a single jigsaw puzzle, where you have only some of the pieces.

That means that even if you feel you see a pattern forming, an explanation arising, you have to remain aware that without the larger picture, any such attempts will remain flawed, and that any such view needs to be as fluid as the evidence - the experiences - demands.

In a way, I guess you could saw there's a certain method that is demanded.

I personally get frustrated when people fall into easy answers - I don't deny them that right, but I don;t want to be satisfied by simple explanations if it they seem to be masking a deeper explanation.

Perhaps it's like a difference between literal and non-literal Christians - the literal has easy sentences to remember that appear to explain everything - therefore the answer and Objective Truth is given. The non-literalist may look into the deeper analogies, the historical context, the literary studies, not because Objective Truth can be gained, but instead because a Useful Insight may be gleaned.

In that regard, with the process of spiritual development, it is the insight itself that is more important.

In some of the posts above you'll see Path of One and myself especially refer to experiences that by many accounts may seem strange, unexplained, or simply easy to dimiss.

But notice how we are not trying to reduce these to easy explanations to proclaim as truth on you all, and not trying to insist that you agree on the grounds that if we have these experiences we must therefore know more.

Instead, we recognise that they are sometimes extreme experiences, and wonder aloud how they may fit into a wider world view - one in which we can explore for possibilities and probabilities - but also one in which we have no clear explanations.

I think a number of people on this thread realise there is a wider reality that as humans we have not been able to address or see described as science as yet - not because we have an existing bias that what we know about the world is wrong, but instead, from a collection of experiences that may sometimes seem small and mundane, or sometimes large and extreme, we sometimes cannot fail to be drawn to the conclusion that there is something larger in this world of reality than we can currently describe.

Without that explanation, some of the experiences may remain curiosities, incidentals, something to tell among friends at parties, or something to be dismissed altogether.

However, the more frequent and more powerful the experiences, the more we are drawn to believe our current view of reality is incomplete, and seek to use those experiences to find an insight into the deeper truths of the universe.

2c.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I never claimed to be super-psychic.

Are you sure? Never? I do understand you, really I do....I have been there and it is a nice place to be. Just there is that niggling bit in my head (I think) that wants to know what is really going on. I hope to one day find evidence that proves psychic-ness or a divine. Its about my only chance to become an 'easy' millionaire.

Guess you could say I'm not a naturalist or materialist, but not sure what you'd call me in terms of philosophical leaning.

Evolving? I think it is sometimes all too easy to get lost in attaching indelible labels to ourselves in this effort to understand our own identity. A key aspect of my thinking on these kinds of issues is drawn directly from the science requisite of being open minded to all the data. Not putting the conclusion first. Believing is putting the conclusion first. As this outright scepticism fails to provide a solidity, a foundation, for beliefs that provide an existential anchor it can leave people feeling seasick. Its not as sure and steadfast as having something to believe in. I think for people as gentle and spiritual as you this queasiness just has no appeal. It is not the easiest place to be. I believe we all have some degree of what you would call spiritual. And that it is very valuable. I just think it has nothing what so ever to do with any entity, deity, force or whatever. I think we can get a full understanding of what it is by knowing humans as social animals. My gripe is always with religion, not individual psycho-emotional temporalising. I think we should learn the lessons of how easily our emotional needs are subverted by religions and keep belief entirely personal. Reality is in no desert ideology of the tribes. And if you need a hero....be one.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Brian,

That is all very nice and sweet and hippy, no condescension to nice sweet hippydom intended, but it is a search for enlightenment to what? Another possibility? Fair enough but if it is not tested with 'every' tool how can you make informed advancement? I just want some weight to my beliefs, I want to use study methods that show real phenomena that can be measured time and time again. And when I have applied them to the questions we discuss I do find mundane cause and effect. Every time. No exceptions. And they are compelling. I simply cannot ignore that.

 

[path_of_one]

I think I'm about where Brian is at. I think in part I am wary of explanatory models of any sort because first, I have seen through science over the years that explanations evolve over time as our capacities evolve and second, I have had too many years of fundamentalist Christians insisting on pat answers for things and simplistic ethical models to want to engage in the same sort of behavior and thought.

I am far more interested in possibility, potential, open-ended wondering about the world than in nailing down any particular cause-effect scenario. My spiritual life is more art than science, and I'm happy with that.

I think enlightenment is not about knowing how things work, but rather about the transformation of the self such that one manifests love, joy, and peace. It isn't that one has to have the right storyline to get there- be that materialism or the opposite extremes of fundamental monotheism. It is that through relationship with other beings, we have the opportunity to grow into more open-minded and open-hearted people, to share and love. To me- that is the whole point- to love and to enjoy incarnation. The former guides my ethics and the latter provides a path to joy. While I find scientific explanations interesting, they neither transform me into a more loving being (as it is the experience for me, and not the explanation, that does so) nor do they make me joyful (as again, it is the moment that does this, not the past or future or some sort of knowledge). So it isn't that I dismiss simplistic explanations so much as I am trying to remain open to possibility, and from this openness springs a focus on each moment unto itself and a greater potential for me to be really peaceful and happy in that moment. That's just how it works for me.

Rather than settle in one or another belief, be it religious or magical or scientific, I just couch everything in potentiality. Maybe it's this way, maybe that way. I don't know. I get comfortable with openness, with insecurity, with change, with mystery. This seems to be translating well into ordinary life decisions, so that I can weather crazy storms with calm and at times, glee. It's just what works for me. If someone else finds more transformative value in materialism or in fundamentalism or in whatever ideology they have, good for them. But for me, what I was saying is that I accept constant change and revision, I embrace the mystery of life experience.

My own scientific work and what I have read in general indicates complex processes and emergent phenomena in various levels of systems (be they ecological, social, etc.) and I suspect that the universe in general works this way- that reductionism is faulty in assuming a lack of emergent phenomena, which has been blatantly proven to occur. So, what I'm dealing with from both my scientific and my spiritual experience is a complex systems-based universe in which phenomena might emerge and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is, I think, what Brian might also be suspecting as one senses the depth of complexity behind ordinary life. Because of this, I remain open to the possibility of what could be. I might as well do this, because any time I create a solid idea about how it works or somesuch, an experience puts my world upside down and I'm starting from scratch again. Is this dynamism? I don't know if there is a philosophical label that describes it, but there you have it.

 

[earl]

I think I'm about where Brian is at. I think in part I am wary of explanatory models of any sort because first, I have seen through science over the years that explanations evolve over time as our capacities evolve and second, I have had too many years of fundamentalist Christians insisting on pat answers for things and simplistic ethical models to want to engage in the same sort of behavior and thought.

I am far more interested in possibility, potential, open-ended wondering about the world than in nailing down any particular cause-effect scenario. My spiritual life is more art than science, and I'm happy with that.

I think enlightenment is not about knowing how things work, but rather about the transformation of the self such that one manifests love, joy, and peace. It isn't that one has to have the right storyline to get there- be that materialism or the opposite extremes of fundamental monotheism. It is that through relationship with other beings, we have the opportunity to grow into more open-minded and open-hearted people, to share and love. To me- that is the whole point- to love and to enjoy incarnation. The former guides my ethics and the latter provides a path to joy. While I find scientific explanations interesting, they neither transform me into a more loving being (as it is the experience for me, and not the explanation, that does so) nor do they make me joyful (as again, it is the moment that does this, not the past or future or some sort of knowledge). So it isn't that I dismiss simplistic explanations so much as I am trying to remain open to possibility, and from this openness springs a focus on each moment unto itself and a greater potential for me to be really peaceful and happy in that moment. That's just how it works for me.

Rather than settle in one or another belief, be it religious or magical or scientific, I just couch everything in potentiality. Maybe it's this way, maybe that way. I don't know. I get comfortable with openness, with insecurity, with change, with mystery. This seems to be translating well into ordinary life decisions, so that I can weather crazy storms with calm and at times, glee. It's just what works for me. If someone else finds more transformative value in materialism or in fundamentalism or in whatever ideology they have, good for them. But for me, what I was saying is that I accept constant change and revision, I embrace the mystery of life experience.

My own scientific work and what I have read in general indicates complex processes and emergent phenomena in various levels of systems (be they ecological, social, etc.) and I suspect that the universe in general works this way- that reductionism is faulty in assuming a lack of emergent phenomena, which has been blatantly proven to occur. So, what I'm dealing with from both my scientific and my spiritual experience is a complex systems-based universe in which phenomena might emerge and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is, I think, what Brian might also be suspecting as one senses the depth of complexity behind ordinary life. Because of this, I remain open to the possibility of what could be. I might as well do this, because any time I create a solid idea about how it works or somesuch, an experience puts my world upside down and I'm starting from scratch again. Is this dynamism? I don't know if there is a philosophical label that describes it, but there you have it.

Well, heck, seems reasonable to me. I think, though, that your dialogues with Tao illustrate why science will never conclusively settle any of the "Great Mysteries-"at least those involving human phenomenology and anonmalous experience. Science in its theories is of course a belief system. What many in that camp often seem blind to is that those theoretical beliefs are often subtly based on broader world views. All science can do is study human experiences in terms of phenomenology, cultural systems and, if one is of a "hard science" bent do such things as mapping brain functioning to mental states. But what those experiences imply about reality are left to interpretation subtly affected by world view. So, neuroscientists can identify what the brain is doing when Buddhist meditators are achieving unitive mind states but then the scientists are left to decide if those experiences actually reflect reality. Researchers disposed to a worldview that fundamental reality is of that nature might say yes. Those that think we're only our brain and that there is no fundamental unitive aspect to conscious experience would probably simply say "well now we know how the brain tricks us into believing that." Thing is, Kim, your statements reflect you are always aware of how your worldview might affect your interpretations of experience, while Tao, does not seem to do so. If Tao had an out-of-body experience involving God talking to him from a burning bush and chatted with 5 dead relatives, he'd be likely to blame it on the bad fish he ate. Tao, the nature of a worldview is also reflective in the willingness to consider anonalous evidence that conflicts with one's view. Needless to say, I've seen you do what I believe many researchers with a materialistic worldview do-they simply automatically dismiss any evidence which cannot be explained within their worldview. So, I do not see science ever settling the biggest questions, not just because of this latter tendency which keeps scientific advancement very slow, but also because experiences are open to explanatory interpretation and how we explain it to ourselves is based on a worldview. So, Tao, you and Kim have engaging dialogues, but your 2 worldviews are "twains that shall never meet."

 

[Quahom1]

Here's a little thought experiment - next time you look at people, imagine they are surrounded by many tiny lines extending out and returning upon themselves, a little like a plasma ball if you will. Now do that the next time you walk down the street, and also imagine that every time you are looking at someone, that some of your own force lines from your own bio-field touches theirs directly. Now observe how many of those people you look at in that way suddenly glance around, straight at you.

I think that is called enabling one's magnetosphere. Kind of like tossing iron filings into the air and watching as they are attracted to and reveal the lines of the magnetic influence of the individual. Quite startling to suddenly perceive.



By the way, this is a real picture, taken from one of the US Apollo missions, of the earth's magnetosphere...not an artist's rendition.

 

[Francis king]

for me, this topic is mucho interesting...

I am quite suprised to discover that there are so many... erm... freaks here... communicating with trees, birds, animals- yes! I do this too!

I get "flashes" sometimes, from trees- like a transmission of energy... no conscious communcation beyond an essence... like, I can drink from the trees. I find some trees won't share with you, but some trees are comforting, and almost wrap a branch around your shoulder... For me, trees which see a lot of ppl pass them daily have less of this energy than those who are in woods, unvisited. Then, trees which bear fruit seem to be the most positive, and will happily share some energy if you approach them reverentially... for me, willow, beech and hazel have been the most responsive, yet I get nothing from oaks or sycamores. This flash, I should add, is very much like the flash I get when I'm reading religious texts or thinking about the Gods, or connecting with "spirit" (as in the sense of the "mediumship" type spirit).

For me, this energy is God, not some bearded ancient king seen in profile, but a joyous energy beyond description- light, life, Spirit, consciousness- even soul..

I am also a good communicator with animals. Dogs are easy to summon, mentally, without using words or signals, and will usually happily leave their masters to come to me. Cats also do the same- yet whereas dogs like being commanded, cats like to be flattered... I haven't tried it much with other animals, but horses, which I love, always raise themselves up on their hind legs, or they bully me... police horses are different- they will make eye contact, but they're too controlled to interact with me.

Birds are the same, yet are far more wary; I have several birds which I consider to be, however ridiculous it sounds, friends. Birds like to look at you, and so I find that with birds, its all about movement- mimic them, they become interested, walk like they do, etc, and they like it... then they will start to watch you more, and you can eventually, start to talk to them. "Hello my mate Robin", and over Robin comes to sing- it's quite glorious...

However... I don't think it has anything to do with extra-human consciousness, but more to do with "consciousness" full stop.

communication isn't just about talking- 75% of what we say isn't anything to do with words; instead, tone and inflection, body language, facial expressions all say things- nine times out of ten, it doesn't matter who efficient or inefficient person A is, other ppl will respond positively to them so long as they feel person A has made an emotional connection to them...

the agressive, the frightened? animals sense this just the same as humans do. Yet hate and fear are not innate- they are learned behaviours, and the majority of animals and birds never learn about hate or fear. Generally because they don't know humans that well yet or they are not considered prey and forever mindful of hunters.

Just because animals don't speak english or french doesn't mean they're stupid. My cat understands sanskrit sentences- I love you, I am closing the door, etc... I suspect it's all about familiarity here- if I asked him to lick his tail when I meant "come in the house" I am sure he would eventually start to associate the words "lick your tail" with "come inside".

as for "empaths"; "special people" who are able to "read" other people's emtional and physical states, as if this is some kind of "psychic" or "extra-sensory perception"? I don't believe this theory at all...

Yes, I agree that some ppl are definately better at reading others, be they animals, adults or children, but I think that these people are just better communicators, more insightful, take more notice of the non verbal cues... for me, I am able to see "fights" brew before they come to blows, before fists become clenched, but this is a skill I have grown into via watching so many fights- you see the signs; small facial twitches, etc. On the psych ward I can tell within hours which are the patients to watch, and which are the patients who need watching over. I don't have to ask them any deep and meaningful questions- it's obvious, to me. But not to everyone.

I think that communication relies on trust. Familiarity fosters trust. Once people/animals become less scared of each other and are not prey or hunters they are then able to try to communicate their needs and wants to the other.

I can ask, using words, any of my cats for a kiss. Over they will come, and rub their mouths on mine. The word for love/kisses in cat language, is...

g-nee. (If you have cats, try it yourself. Say g-nee, no low tones, not over high, say, alto/tenor pitch, see if they will kiss you!)

Monkeys can use flash cards, string sentences together- I want banana, I love Kate, etc. Scuientists reckon monkeys have reasoning and logic abilities akin to that of the average five year old. The Ph.D student might think the child is dumb, but that child knows how to communicate its wants and needs, just like my cat does.

For me, this is just a fabulous part of life which a lot of ppl, caught up in the world and its ways, simply don't see- they don't have to time to charm the birds from the trees- heck, they don't even notice the trees. Tunnel vision, just looking for the train to arrive and take them to work, they see nothing else.

If you look and watch and observe the world instead of desperately striving to make a mark on it, then you too will see and hear things which seem fantastical, but which are simply a part of the world we have never noticed before...

 

[Quahom1]

Lol, Francis, I could tell you stories that would knock your socks off, concerning this issue...

 

[wil]

Lol, Francis, I could tell you stories that would knock your socks off, concerning this issue...

News at 11??

what a tickler??

Q, this is a discussion forum...

discuss!!

 

[Quahom1]

News at 11??

what a tickler??

Q, this is a discussion forum...

discuss!!

Lol, here's one...It's kind of funny now, but not when it actually happened. September 1984, sitting in a defunct cafeteria on the 55th floor of one of the World Trade Center Towers, waiting for my language class to start. There was me, and this one guy. He was sitting cross legged on a table, facing the window, wrists on knees, fingers up (meditating). He didn't see or hear me sit down behind him.

I'd just got done reading some stuff about the power of suggestion, and I thought "Hmm, his guard is down, mind is open, he's relaxed, let's see".

Next to him was a glass of water. So I started picturing him sitting in desert sand, facing the sun, and it was very hot. And I kept thinking "So thirsty, so thirsty...". I did this for about five minutes. As I was getting up to head to class, I looked at him and thought one last thought, "SO THIRSTY, I'M GOING TO DIE!!!"

Suddenly that guy jerked, grabbed for his water glass and drained it, spilling on his shirt and in his lap. Then he looked around wild eyed and confused, lost his balance and fell off the table. Then he spotted me as I was leaving the room, and the fear in his eyes, scared the hell out of me. He didn't know what had just happened, but I did.

I took advantage of a guy who was vunerable mentally, just for fun. There was nothing constructive or beneficial to what I was trying to do. I was a stupid kid, playing with mental dynamite, at someone else's expense.

Anyway, I told my Ma about it later, and she asked "What lesson did you learn?"

I said we can't play with people's hearts, minds, souls, like they were toys. And I wouldn't want someone to do that to me.

I also thought it wasn't wise for anyone to open themselves up like that in a public place. Because some jerk might come along and mess around in peoples' minds, where they have no business being...

I never did that for self centered purposes again.

Like I said, kinda funny now, but not really.

 

[earl]

This debate, (in this thread and others), in part has been a debate about the legitimacy of the materialist worldview underlying the scientific approach. It is not science per se that is questionable but the materialistic worldview often subtly coloring it. Haven't read his new book yet. But Charles Tart, a psychologist who has studied paranormal experiences for 50 years has compiled how he believes paranormal research sustantially places that worldview into doubt in his book, "The End of Materialism."
Netscape Search earl

 

[Francis king]

quahom- lol

back to what I was saying about birds.. look what I found...

Pigeons have eye for paintings: Japan study - Yahoo! News UK

 

[Snoopy]

This debate, (in this thread and others), in part has been a debate about the legitimacy of the materialist worldview underlying the scientific approach.

How about materialism being a legitimate world-view, but not the full picture?

s.

 

[path_of_one]

That's about how I see it, Snoopy. I figure using a diverse set of philosophies, approaches, and methodologies is the most useful way to inquire about the universe.