crystals

[AmentiHall]

Crystals, Indigos, Starseeds are all labels that arose from similar phenomenon.

In all honesty, these people are "holders" of frequency. For many different reasons...It's hard to describe.

People in the mainstream like to say that Crystals are evolution of Indigos, and that they are different. In reality- they are not very different. As the "frequency" accumulates in earth, and after the "first" holders have spread enough of the basic frequencies, then "newer" higher ranging energies can come in, and spread further. If these upper energies were to immediately come into earth, the grids, and various other things would be "overloaded" as would our bodies. In fact, we might not even feel or see them at all. Therefore, a gradual process must be done.

This process is also done since birth...as the entire "soul" cannot quite integrate into the fetus due to our low, three dimensional level of vibration. As time goes on, more of "you" begins to integrate with your mind and body. This is the real idea of what a "walkin" really is. It is "other" parts of you coming in, able to integrate more wholely the spirit with mind and body. Any other sort of walkin is an intrusive being- so don't believe the hoopla.

This is what some call the "upgrading' from indigo to crystal. The truth of the matter, is people like me, and you- are constantly "evolving" and as you do so you are able to "tap" into the new energies. As you do, you are expanding the limits and barriers of your mind, body, and more of your "spirit" is able to synchronize with the rest of you. So called "crystal" children also usually hold a specific gene set that allows for more multi-dimensional awareness and abilities since youth.

Someone mentioned crystals being used and applied in science. It already is, in more ways than one. There is also some pretty well hidden projects that use crystal in particular- there is a reason this knowledge is kept out of mainstream.

I understand others skepticism, this skepticism primarily originates from the new age "whoring" out of mystical and esoteric concepts. Everything in new age is not "new" its actually very old knowledge, that has become recently popular. Almost all of these concepts can be found in ancient Alchemy schools and Occult spiritual sciences. Of course someone that goes aroudn claiming dna activation for thousands of dollars, from long distance, or a 200 dollar piece of rock, among other things are huge "red flags" for skeptics.

What I find funny is they let this define the "entire" meaning of all the teachings without ever actually exploring it. This is as equally close-minded and IMO stupid as the people on the other end running the scams.

Most of these concepts are real- as with anything real and resonant...the ideas are often twisted and distorted to fit an agenda. Or to make a profit, or control others. Look at religion for example. All truth can be deciphered from any good material. All truth is internal, not external.

Take care.

 

[DrumR]

Crystals, Indigos, Starseeds are all labels that arose from similar phenomenon.

In all honesty, these people are "holders" of frequency.

I take it that you are implying that "these" people", as you put it, have some quality, left un-mentioned, of resonant at a singular physical or electro-magnetic wavelength?

For many different reasons...It's hard to describe.

Would a lack of a sufficient vocabulary fit one of those postulates or theories?

People in the mainstream like to say that Crystals are evolution of Indigos,

Sorry to dispute this but "People in the mainstream" would consider indigo as a color and/or a color causing agent - a dye as it were. Crystals might well be described, by many, as a type of "pretty" rock. Some of these "pretty rocks", aka diamonds - a crystaline form of carbon, can cost in excess of a mere $200 per troy ounce. If one is using a sub-set of people that are much less than the "mainstream" would consider as "mainstream" it would be most helpful to more accurately describe that particular group or groups.

Much of the remainder of what was presented in the post makes very little sense to me as there are few, if any, solid reference points that one may grasp upon firmly. Much in the way of Pseudo-scientific terminology <1> was sprinkled about with what appears little regard to encouraging illumination on the part of the casual reader. It was as if obfuscation and ambiguity were the order of the day.

Should assistance be needed to "coin a new phrase" or term and to assign some bounds to a definition to same, I am quite sure that there are those who would be able to do so. Unfortunately one would need to put forth that query.


1 - "Pseudo-scientific terminology" Scientific labels mis-applied and/or scientific sounding constructs to lend the appearance of scientific authority.

 

[AmentiHall]

Um- more like lack of any sort of scientific words that would accurately describe the process at hand- hence I use what is available. Did I come about saying I was a PhD or a scientist professing proof? No, It's an opinion.

I find it Ironic you mentioned "scientific sounding constructs to lend the appearance of scientific authority." What are you doing in your post? Are you one of those expert internet debunkers? I'm sorry, do I need peer review? Or how bout a mathematical formula proving my OPINION.

The term indigo/crystal has become pretty mainstream. Perhaps I should of been specific and mentioned "new age mainstream."

By the way, I posted this in the wrong thread- I didn't even mean to post it here. Hah, no wonder- This was supposed to be in the Indigos and Crystals thread...I must of been running two windows and posted the reply in the wrong one (one window being this one, the other the other thread).

WOOPS, my bad guys!

 

[DrumR]

Thank you for the favor of a most ...
"interesting" reply, AmentiHall.

Um- more like lack of any sort of scientific words that would accurately describe the process at hand- hence I use what is available.</quote>

Hence my query of:

Would a lack of a sufficient vocabulary fit one of those postulates or theories?

There are times when language does indeed fail to provide clear and generally transportable definitions. This occurs most often when a discussion turns to concepts that are experiential in nature. It is during instances, such as the preceeding, that one may resort to similie and/or metaphor with the megre expectation that one may, hopefully, be able to get the meanings accross to another. I believe that I had made comment upon this very issue within the Taoist message area.

Did I come about saying I was a PhD or a scientist professing proof?

It is questionable as to the formal educational accomplishments of someone who has not stated such. This may prove to be especially vexing when viewed in light of the message board medium where multiple personas and writing styles may be present combined with that potential to vary from post to post multiple times during the course of a given day. In the above case neither the profession of proofs nor their refutation as proofs was indicated; yet it was to address the lack of accuracy and insufficient clarity in those general statements offered that comments were issued; more on this will be found later on in this reply.

No, It's an opinion.

As there was no direct statement to that effect in the post, I Thank you for this "after-the-fact" clarification. For your information (FYI) it is considered as courteous to include a notification of one's personal opinion in close proximity to same. Abbreviations, such as IMO and IMHO (In My Opinion and In My Humble Opinion - respectively), have been in use for quite some time from the early days of message boards, which goes back to the personal BBS's (Bulletin Board Service) prior to the popularity of the internet, as a preventative for potential personal attacks, also known as (AKA) flaming, or by clearly delineating those areas of a posting that are of personal opinion only.

I find it Ironic you mentioned "scientific sounding constructs to lend the appearance of scientific authority."

Perhaps it is somewhat telling that of the "either/or" option that it was the "or" option which was chosen?
I take the liberty to quote that provided "definition" here:

1 - "Pseudo-scientific terminology" Scientific labels mis-applied and/or scientific sounding constructs to lend the appearance of scientific authority.

From the opening quote of this reply it would appear that the former "definition" would be more applicable, based upon the later clarification of intent as found within that quote, more so than would the other "definition," which had been chosen for comment.

What are you doing in your post?

The posting which has been referanced has presented corrections to the accuracy to certain statements, what is hoped to have been some usefull suggestions presented, queries for further clarification posed, an offer of assistance had been hinted at, a personal opinion stated, a critique rendered;
all of this at no additional costs or hidden fees to the user.

Are you one of those expert internet debunkers?

As a firm believer in strongly constructed and adequately stocked strongholds that would effectivly resist assault in the "real world", versus the many virtual reality games as found on the internet, I would state that I am neither an expert nor a de-bunker. Further I am of the opinion that every household should have their own bunker and, perhaps, even one extra for that weekend get-a-way.

I'm sorry, do I need peer review? Or how bout a mathematical formula proving my OPINION.

Who may or may not be classified as one's peers and wether or not a review is necessary may be seen as far and away from the point.

The series of message boards that comprise the Interfaith Forums is, for the most part and to the best of my knowledge, "world viewable" and those statements posted on these forums and message threads have the potential to be scrutenized, analyzed and commented upon by the membership. This active responce to one's postings is a function of, and one of the attractions to, message boards in general. The crafting of a post, be it to initiate a topical discussion with others, request information from others, or as means of creative expression - including jocularity, is subject to all or none the above at the whim of the individual poster.

As to expressing one's opinion without comment by others - that is far from guarenteed. The deliniation of one's personal opinion within a post has been addressed previously in this reply.

The term indigo/crystal has become pretty mainstream. Perhaps I should of been specific and mentioned "new age mainstream."

When generalities are found to be less than sufficient it would lend much to both clarity and accuracy to turn one's statements toward the inclusion of more specifics concerning the matter.

By the way, I posted this in the wrong thread- I didn't even mean to post it here. Hah, no wonder- This was supposed to be in the Indigos and Crystals thread...I must of been running two windows and posted the reply in the wrong one (one window being this one, the other the other thread).

WOOPS, my bad guys!

Nice post script.

 

[iBrian]

Hmm...curious question - crystals are used in lasers, but what criteria makes a particular type of crystal particularly suitable for use in a particular laser? Is it the flawlessness of the crystal, or simply the frequency by which light is emitted?

Simply trying to bring in a point that science and technology do have a special interest in crystals under at least some circumstances.

 

[DrumR]

Hmm...curious question - crystals are used in lasers, but what criteria makes a particular type of crystal particularly suitable for use in a particular laser? Is it the flawlessness of the crystal, or simply the frequency by which light is emitted?

Simply trying to bring in a point that science and technology do have a special interest in crystals under at least some circumstances.

The criteria for the choice of a particular crystal to be used as a LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) are based upon the many mechanisms involved; the lack of optical flaws being but one.<1>

LASER processes start at the atomic level in that an applied energy to the more mobile outer electron shell boost electrons to a higher quantum orbit for a time, then the electrons return to the lower, more stable, orbit releasing the excess energy that has been absorbed. The ability of the outer orbital electrons to be boosted to higher, and temporarily stable quantum, orbits, rather that being totally dislodged from the parent atom<2>, becomes an additional factor in the selection of LASER materials.

Should the time period, from energy absorbtion to its release be a constant and should the level of energy absorbtion within each atom effected be also constant; then we may see two more of the selection criteria.

There are other factors involved that also contribute to the selection of materials used for LASER, the efficiency of the overall processes, etc. The complexity of the selection of materials for this one application and aspect of crystals may be seen to expand rapidly.

What then may be said about a serious investigation into the "Bio-Crystal" Interactions which would appear to have been the main thrust of this thread?

Notes
1 - consideration for optical crystaline LASER devices.
2 - i.e. that class of materials known as conductors see also the photo-electric effect

 

[iBrian]

LASER processes start at the atomic level in that an applied energy to the more mobile outer electron shell boost electrons to a higher quantum orbit for a time, then the electrons return to the lower, more stable, orbit releasing the excess energy that has been absorbed. The ability of the outer orbital electrons to be boosted to higher, and temporarily stable quantum, orbits, rather that being totally dislodged from the parent atom<2>, becomes an additional factor in the selection of LASER materials.

You'll be suggesting crystals have different resonance frequencies next!

By the way, that is a joke.

But I am trying to make a more serious point - I have longed believed that there is a communications problem between the sciences and spirituality, not least in different approaches using different definitions, different accepted concepts. When these mix, confusion reigns.

I've got to admit I know or understand little about crystals from a non-geological point of view, but I have tried to use empathy on crystals or people wearing crystals, and gotten results I didn't rightly understand.

That's why I mentioned the subject of lasers - they work in a very precise and defined way.

But...here's a question...what if crystals naturally go through periods of cycles of excited and non-excited phases - according to their mineral content, shape, size, and other factors - but simply in such a way as to not be useful from a technological perspective? Would this not account for at least some of the New Age language regarding crystals and their properties?

2c.

 

[citizenzen]

But...here's a question...what if crystals naturally go through periods of cycles of excited and non-excited phases - according to their mineral content, shape, size, and other factors - but simply in such a way as to not be useful from a technological perspective? Would this not account for at least some of the New Age language regarding crystals and their properties?

Only if the wearer can feel atoms and the infinitesimally small effect a crystal would have on them.

This puppy has placebo written all over it.

At least that effect has been both proven to exist and to alter one's well-being.

 

[iBrian]

Of course you can feel atoms - you're touching them all the time.

What's infinitesimally small if we haven't even measured any emissions? After all, the piezoelectric effect in quartz is quite observable and measurable.

 

[citizenzen]

Of course you can feel atoms - you're touching them all the time.

Ow. This one atom in my back is just killing me!

 

[wil]

Actually we can't 'touch' anything now then can we?

Isn't what we refer to as feel is actually the repelling of electrons from one atom to another?

 

[DrumR]

Finale!
E-pithany<1>

I. Brian
The interface between science and spirituality is somewhat clouded by the lack of basic vocabulary to relate to another an experiential occurence. Metaphor and simile are invaluable aids for such experiential "happenings" but have proven themselves as partially inadequate.
Taking a tangential course, the developement fuzzy logic may yet prove to provide a "key" to explaning the inexplicable. One can only hope.

Yet much of the paranormal new age babble-speak has been shown, to me at least, to be based upon the inadequate vocabulary of the individuals to begin with. In the thread "Technopagans" I had mentioned a sub-group whose goal was to integrate current and future science and technology into the enhancement of ritual and ritual objects. Alas this marriage of science and spirituality did not even reach the altar, a pre-copulation abortion as it were, for the lack of a scientiific vocabulary kept the would be co-joiners from speaking. What made matters worse was that those who had not the vocabulary refused to learn.

This brings us to the question of "why would one choose to maintain the status of mystery when many would benefit from the revealations?"

CitizenZen
CitzenZen is right to point out the position of that offending atom but did not indicate its velocity. Heizenberg's Principle of Uncertainy once more rears its indetermenent head.

Hold still, CitizenZen, I have my portable Swiss Army Folding Pocket Atom Smasher and Linear Accelerator right here. You'll be over in just a nano second <ZAP>. Hmm. Wrong setting. CitizenZen, CitizenZen, CitizenZen? Its those Buddhists and their blasted impermanence again.

Wil
wil pointed out the fact that we are not in all actually touching another object. What we feel is the mutual repulsive force of large scale electrostatic fields.

Now I, Brian... No, wait. I'm not him and I can prove it!
Anyway this "Brian character had hinted at a "what if" scenario which if coupled wil's observation might just well prove to be the Source of the Prescrition Strength Placebos of the once and previous CitizenZen.

To read my more precsice and detailed scholarly paper concening this subject please deposit 100,000,000 Euros to my secret and un numbered Swiss Bank account. Note a 10 euro discount applies to orders of 1000 or more copies.

1 E-Pithany: The wearing of electronic pith helmets during virtual reality situations.

 

[iBrian]

Ow. This one atom in my back is just killing me!

Heh, when we're talking about crystals we're often talking not about a collection of individual atoms, but instead many atoms directly bonded in a macromolecule. What happens with one usually has a direct impact on the others, hence why crystals are a key component of lasers.

 

[iBrian]

Heh, interesting - even mundane materials can have surprising properties:
Humble sticky tape emits powerful X-rays - tech - 23 October 2008 - New Scientist

Does the fact there is no scientific model that currently explains the claims means this phenomena cannot exist?

 

[citizenzen]

I, Brian... I think what is missing here is the explanation necessary to move from a very localized atomic effects to an overall feeling of personal well-being or power.

People don't wear crystals because they want to affect a few atoms, they wear crystals because they think it affects their whole being. This is the leap that requires proof. We know the placebo effect can explain it. I'm still waiting for the evidence to indicate that crystals can as well.

 

[iBrian]

I kind of take a more pragmatic approach - lack of proof may relate more fundamentally to lack of research (other than statistical placebo models) which may otherwise uncover a property of crystal structures that may be of real quantifiable value.

It goes with my personal world view that there are still fundamental phenomena not yet described by science, so I leave options open where there may be potential spaces.

I accept that someone may believe crystals are capable of something I don't really believe, but the presence or absence of belief is different to the presence or absence of the phenomena itslef.

The point about the Scotch tape example above is that there are many things that can yet surprise us regarding the properties of familiar objects, and I would rather keep my mind open to possibilities yet explored.

In the meantime, I will accept everything, but believe nothing.

(Besides, I felt AmentiHall was being treated a little harshly for a newcomer, and wanted to try and find a way to balance the argument. )

 

[DrumR]

I kind of take a more pragmatic approach - lack of proof may relate more fundamentally to lack of research (other than statistical placebo models) which may otherwise uncover a property of crystal structures that may be of real quantifiable value.

It goes with my personal world view that there are still fundamental phenomena not yet described by science, so I leave options open where there may be potential spaces.

This is similar to the points that I had offered in earlier posts in this thread. Additionally our personal world views appear to "track" concerning the wealth of "things" remaining to be discovered.

I accept that someone may believe crystals are capable of something I don't really believe, but the presence or absence of belief is different to the presence or absence of the phenomena itslef.

The point about the Scotch tape example above is that there are many things that can yet surprise us regarding the properties of familiar objects, and I would rather keep my mind open to possibilities yet explored.

It is to these possibilities and to the fact that there has been all to little valid research into this area, which was also mentioned earlier in this thread, that I have suggested, albeit in a back handed manner, the use and development of a standardized language to deal with these concepts and the furtherance of basic research that is not geared, by accident or design, to fail.

One of the initial methodologies that was hinted earlier in this thread, was the collection of information from those who believe and practice such "crystaline Arts" by those who are not adverse to accepting the possibility and who also have at their disposal a sufficient language and knowledge base in order to "lay the groundwork" for further study and investigation where time and resources would permit.

It is not, nor has it been, my position to point the finger of dis-belief at a phenomena or phenomenon where there exists little or no solid scientific support either way.

By way of clarification, the scientific method first requires the collection of sufficient data points in a manner that is beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. observation and reporting without, barring Heizenburg uncertainties, interaction of the objects to be observed.

This is difficult where a portion of the observed may be human subjects, and is further complicated where the human psyche may be an operational component under study.

Thus it is that the suggestion has been put forth that instead of the pseudo-scientific labels and structures that are currently, and most often, employed, wil he nil he, that a concerted effort be initiated to construct a standardized and working language which would address that which is all too often lumped under the banner of New-Age Babble.