Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Schumann Resonance Revisited

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Otaki Beach, New Zealand
    Posts
    437

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Dave,

    I'm so sorry I managed to completely ignore half your post! Thank you, Marisa for drawing my oversight to my attention.

    Marisa is the resident expert on frequencies, sessions, hypnotismand more - I have already pleaded defeat on successful session design and conceded to those who wrote the preset sessions. I limit my 'session creativity' to minor tweaks, altering backgrounds and placement of suggestions, etc.

    The actual session that I used for this Schumann experiment is the default Schumann session in MWS, using the Procyon to do the Audiostrobe bit.

    In principle, a lot of standard alpha/theta sessions will already do what you require - lead you down, hold you in a suggestible state, and then bring you up again. The NP2 Super Learning Tool would be a good candidate in conjunction with the Procyon for AS. Marisa would be able to tell you which Procyon session most closely matches it, and then it could just be tweaked for length.

    It's really exciting seeing all these cool projects underway!!!

    Cheers,
    Craig

  2. #22

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Craig,

    Bingo !

    I believe you have also stumbled upon a very useful...attitude...

    Behind the words 'suggestion' & 'intent', is an attitude-of-unbiased-openness, with no pre-judgements, no pre-conditions, and no forced expectations (other than an open/soft positive-expectation...) to seek the 'truth' !

    In my experience, great expectations can lead to great frustration & disappointments... but just doing the inner-preparations to be receptive to the state I am seeking... open minded-ly... works better for me!

    This also ties-in to why I also believe that hypnosis or BWE won't work on someone who is unwilling to be 'entrained' (resisting to be lead by...).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,725
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    I was wondering how long it would be until you found the formatting controls, Ben...

  4. #24

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Andy, good job... you caught me!
    My apologies for drifting into temptation, over conformity.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    I was wondering how long it would be until you found the formatting controls, Ben...

    LOL
    Marisa Broughton, MCHT, MNLP
    Canadian Distributor for Mindplace
    http://www.ayrmetes.com

    Hey, if someone makes a good post, don't forget to click http://www.mindplacesupport.com/foru...ations-40b.png at the bottom of their post to add to their reputation!

  6. #26

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Since my response was addressing half a dozen posts it was way too long for one. So this is technically in three. (I wax on, apparently.)


    I found this thread very interesting, thanks for sharing you guys. I still have much to learn about brainwave technologies, though I've decades of experience with mental stuff of varying types (which really means absolutely nothing except in the context of me-personally, for the most part). There is so much of interest in the thread that I hope you don't mind, I'm just going through the thread at large and quoting bits from various people for my thoughts in response.

    Meditation is a concept I struggle with. A common statement of the goal of meditation is 'to completely clear the mnd'.
    It can be. The "no-mind" meditation has gotten all the press in the West for the most part. Meditation is any focus including a focus-on-no-focus. (I guess that is kind of an analogy to saying that Atheism is a religion since it's a belief about God.) Zen no-mind or Transcendental Meditation both usually operate on a single point of focus (such as a repeated sound) until the subject can essentially space out ('transcend' or insert one other more technical or glorious term for spacing-out here). I did that kind of meditation for about a year. It was good for contributing to relaxation, which of course can be credited with a variety of things. Aside from that it did not do a great deal for me. Most of the few experiences I had that I felt really moved me happened during the times I was not, actually, of no-mind (although no-mind can take you 'through' to a new place where mind is obviously involved, yet not as "consciously autonomously proactive" as we use it in our waking life; more an observer).

    There are other kinds of meditation. Jungian/shamanic meditation for example is conscious work with archetypes. This is also called active imagination and conscious dreaming. Don't be fooled into thinking it's about sitting there imagining something, the name is a little misleading. 'Imaginal' is not imagination-al. When you get into the right state of mind this stuff is *totally autonomous* -- the entire landscape, the identities, everything -- novel, shocking, and profoundly powerful. (It can also cause absolutely radical changes in your immediate reality. I note you mentioned you were into magick previously. Israel Regardie wrote the foreword to Edwin Steinbrecher's book 'The Inner Guide Meditation' which is one of the best books on the subject of this kind of meditation that you can get.)

    One thing that you said that is really significant to the experience that is important to point out is that you were able to let go and just experience the state, without thinking about it and once you did that, your experience became more intense. So one of the keys that we can get from this is how important it is to leave the analyzing of the experience until after the session is over.
    That does seem to be the case for many mind-related experiences. I hadn't thought much about it, but it's a good point that it would be the same in terms of brainwave tech.

    PJ (RC)

  7. #27

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    There were some mumbo-jumbo elements to what I experienced, quite probably wishful thinking, that made the Earth connection with the frequency seem significant.
    At one time, during years of hypnosis/NLP/biofeedback focus, I was a medical-model skeptic. I got a lot of mileage out of believing things about myself and reality that related to that. (Aside from which, NewAgerbils and Alien Abductees are such fabulous warm-up joke material for public speaking!) A long period of spontaneous anomalous experience eventually cracked my rigidly exclusive belief systems (and almost seemed like the archetype of educational-karma, a metaphysical version of taming of the shrew), and those belief systems now seem a world away and unusually simplistic and pre-formed and rigid to me.

    The thing to consider is that every belief about what's probably-not-valid is a belief-about-reality (as opposed to 'reality') and most of the time there are no good reasons for them, if you really look. For example, why wouldn't the earth connection with the frequency be significant? Not saying it is. Just saying there is no particular reason to think it can't be, either. If humans evolved (even partly) on this planet then there is probably more probability that it is somehow related to human consciousness and experience than not.

    There is also mixing 'sound/valid' with 'objectively consensus verifiable' and those are two radically different things. I was taught to consider everything in the first group to be contingent on being in the second group. This is cultural indoctrination. It's like watching Scooby Doo, you know? It's always some faker in a costume. We are brainwashed to believe at a young age that everything without a practical physical objective answer is fake in some manner. We don't know we're indoctrinated because all that is tied up in ego and wanting to be intelligent and respected for that.

    It did not help that in my own life, the people I had previously met open to 'esoteria' and such were basically idiots, and the people I'd met as skeptics were intelligent; it helped reinforce that stereotype. When I began meeting people into metaphysics who were brilliant, successful in business and science, and by no stretch could I consider them fools, it really dented my brain a little. When I further realized, after some experiences of my own and more study, that much of the skeptic perspective was even more hilariously biased and based on faith than the other side, it dented it a little further.

    I have found the most effective way of gathering information for a later more informed decision about anything, is to take everything at face value; "let it be." Work to be without bias, to accept what you sense because injecting conscious judgementalism during the process skews perception, and then record afterward what you sensed. Later, after more experience, you can go through those notes, and you can more clearly see what might have been subjective bias, what is a repeating pattern, what might be a symbol, allegory or analogy for something else, etc. But if you mess up the collection process with restriction, resistance and bias up front, you mess up the scientific nature of the whole process.

    It's very much for the same reasons as some magick work, actually: no matter what the real 'cause' is, if you're doing xyz in meditation or ritual and you feel like you meet a large green multifaceted monster who points at a triangle and you get the concept of the number 9, it doesn't matter how nonsensical this might seem, there is some reason for it no matter how inexplicable it is at the time. You plan a path; you accept what you experience; you document what you experience; you review that and continue planning a path as appropriate. The basic tenets of serious magick (yoga+science+drama+adventure) apply to lots of stuff. And it all seems ridiculous until one day you discover that I'll-be-damned, it turns out that these symbols are so commonly associated with experience X or entity Y or location Z that even your talking about them makes you sound embarrassingly non-original. Then it really cracks your brain and you think, "WTH?? How could totally unrelated people, separated by space and time and culture and era, have the same symbols in the same kind of experience? There must be some commonality going on here, something legit even if we are getting it symbolically/archetypally, if there is this much empirical evidence!" Then you see someone basically going, "So what, that symbol isn't present in a test tube / parked on the white house lawn / repeatable as perfectly as shooting hoops in basketball, hence can't be real." Sigh.

    I figure everyone is different. But fwiw in case it helps: the best mental-model I came up with that helped me best deal with 'spontaneous experiences' despite having what I realized was a kind of 'resistant outlook', was looking at the entire subject as a psychological case study on myself. Then, if I met a large green multifaceted monster the appropriate response was {stroking chin}, "Fascinating. And then what? And how did you feel about that?" I put everything I experienced into the context of a 'case study' where my perception itself became both the point of interest, and point allowed the most flexibility. I started treating my own experiences like a fun movie. 'Ooh, aaah. Wow you wouldn't believe what happened today!' I journaled and wrote friends about it all, which I think helped emphasize the "novelty" of it and brought more of that development into my life. When I looked at the experience itself as a point of fascination -- without expecting or assuming any experience was going to be any given thing -- that helped massively. It also, it turned out later I discovered, greatly kept me from going down the rabbit hole on some given belief system. I got the whole smorgasboard of different stuff over time and because I had no expectations or bias -- I thought it was all basically crazy but fascinating -- I didn't bias that which was very helpful and educational later.

    It's like watching some artsy foreign movie. You don't entirely know what is going on, but you can't really come to any clear conclusion about it either, since it's art, and since it's foreign, and since one only had half a clue through it anyway. So you have to accept it, kind of like poetry or a child's crayon picture: it is whatever it is. So what; that's what it is. It doesn't really have to "mean" anything, or you don't have to know what it means. Emotions like love are also just biochemicals but I'm willing to ignore that and accept the 'experience' I have with love as a result of my child, whatever it might be. Well an experience during meditation (whether in magick, drugs, or neurotech) is pretty much in the same boat. It is almost certainly some side effect of brain waves/chemicals/etc., but that just makes it interesting. There are certain drugs or stimulus points that give fairly repeatable experiences, even the same 'entities' encountered (ref McKenna brothers writings). If nobody had talked about that we wouldn't know it was possible which would be a big loss because that is hugely important even if we don't totally know why yet.

    As a last note, IMO the biggest hindrance to interaction about offbeat stuff is vocabulary. There is no decent vocabulary for most of it! We have to either make up words, or 'stretch' the current meaning of existing words, or use words that do exist but are taken from some eastern culture which means to us they're taken from the mystical or new-age subculture of the West. It's easy to dismiss things because they come packaged in woo-woo rather than logic. You can talk about chakras and some people's eyes roll up in their head, but if they read Dr. Robert Becker's book 'The Body Electric' about his research via the Navy funded contract to study the electrical systems of the body, it all starts to become a little bit more plausible. And it only takes actually meditating on the subject regularly for a few months to become 'aware' of them so significantly that it then seems actually kinda dense that one ever doubted.

    How you feel about your own experiences is hugely affected by model as well. For example with certain kinds of focus you can start getting 'overlays' as if there is more than one reality going on but we're only aware of 'this' one, but briefly when a bit spacey can become aware of others. A person can take a standard approach and go, "Oh my god. I'm schizophrenic!" and they're afraid and things get negative and weird and they go get drugged. Or you can take a Sethian outlook and go, "Hey, alternate simultaneous realities, and my consciousness is becoming more aware. Cool!" and that's that and you shrug and move on. The examples like this are endless.

    It's important to have vocabulary for 'shared experience' discussion, and for ways of healthily dealing with experiences that do occur. But it's also important because what a person accepts or rejects is often based not upon the merit of the thing, but on the presentation of the person talking about it. I try to remember the sayings, "sometimes the worst people give the best advice" and "you can't judge the wine by the bottle". When you hear something that seems ridiculous, even from yourself, just ask, why? Why is it ridiculous? And I think you'll often find that you don't even REALLY think it's ridiculous so much as you think it SOUNDS ridiculous, and culturally we so learn to graft our perception-of-self based on perception-by-others and impose all of that on our perception-of-reality that we don't even notice that somehow 'objectivity' became 'peer pressure'.

    PJ (RC)

  8. #28

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    I think there is a whole lot of territory to explore in the "inner universe". Because of where it takes place, "reality" is irrelevant - which is actually kind of cool - because the focus then can be on the experience itself.
    Good point.

    Perhaps this is where "New Age" went/goes wrong - people mistook an "inner" experience for an "outer" one. Perhaps these are two separate planes of existence per se' and they do not mix well with each other. It would be like confusing a dream with lets call it "physical reality".
    Interested to hear any further thoughts on this. It relates to the topic at hand because people working out how to classify, categorize, accept or reject their own experiences is a good parallel to this subject. I think people working out how to communicate well about something without feeling like -- or frankly, looking to others like -- embarrassing numbskulls is important. ;-)

    Confusing the inner with the outer is a sure definition of insanity and likely to bring about very real harm in the outer.
    It can, yeah.

    Sometimes though, I think a lot of what is on the inner is a reflection (if not the original blueprint generating the perceived outer reality) of the outer, and so has considerable meaning.

    I think the biggest mistake made is that often people mistake what has meaning for them as what has meaning for everybody. If I dream something about Craig, it mostly likely says something legit about how I feel about Craig, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the dream is legit about him outside of my own symbolic and individual perspective. If he's wearing combat boots in my dream that doesn't mean he's wearing them in real life. (It CAN on rare occasion, more for some people than others, but that is a separate subject, and inconsistent enough to be subjected to serious skepticism even by the dreamer, anyway.) I think projecting inner subjective meaning on the outer subjective world is where a lot of the new-age world (so to speak, that term is actually quite old and addresses the late 1800s as much as 2009) gets lost.

    The only thing I really know after the event is that I know a little less than I thought I did.
    Great line! That really sums up most worthwhile experiences that are novel. :-)

    The point that I did want to make but can't really find the adequate words to put it into was something like ... because it was an inner experience, it can not be judged by physical world standards. It's not enough to say it was a hallucination because something more happened in that journey. It's like taking a deep sea dive. You can't compare the landscape of the sea, or the creatures, to that of "on-land". Nor would it do the experience justice to say you went deep sea diving and saw some fish and stuff. It's a whole different world under the sea and just because it's not a part of our land life, doesn't mean that what happens under the sea isn't important.
    Great point. Much more succinct than mine LOL.

    I ascribe nothing mystical to what happened. My brain did something it hasn't done before, and I have documented the event as well as my language permits.
    In theory anything that happens which is legitimate to the individual is not really mystical except in 'vocabulary' and how others judge that. If I have a scalar coil and I turn it on, I feel something. Is that mystical? No. If I have a ritual or a dream I may feel something. Is that mystical? Well it's called that because the seeming-causative-factor wasn't something we could stick in a test tube. But really, what's the difference? IMO the primary difference is that we seriously lack "vocabulary for shared experience" on the more ineffable stuff.

    I wonder why so many people need something such of this to be "real" in order to be more valid. "Real" referring to that which exists in the physical world and can be seen and experienced by others such as trees, cars, chocolate etc.
    Right, I agree. "Sound" means valid; something can be 'a sound idea' without being 'a physical thing' for example.

    And yet people like Sylvia Browne are not in asylums.
    Once upon a time she was right once in awhile which may have done her and the world more harm than help since she doesn't seem to have been much since. ;-)

    However, as I find my "system/internal environment" to be in a constant flux, I have presently abandoned the "scientific idea" of "repeatable" results when it comes to consciousness & awareness. I find my state of consciousness shifts from day to day, not to mention from moment to moment... Is it because of "me" only, or because the "external-to-me, where I must live in" changes, or both?
    This is a whole topic of its own I find fascinating. I've done a lot of work over the years with things that are literally unique at every experience point, very inconsistent, no way to predict them, and yet they work often enough to seem clearly legit, and yet they don't work often enough to make one think there must be some gigantic variable we're just totally missing.

    How much does one?s intent account for the experience we ?get?, versus the ?input? provided by the Universe we live in, or even the chosen input we wish to experiment with ? T?aiChi theory says that the intent leads the vital energy? ?Yi leads Chi? is a true enough fact in my life experience.
    There's actually a white paper in anomalous cognition research called 'Intention, Attention and Expectation' that said the researchers believed from decades of experience that these three factors in place -- as well as a solid science protocol and a talented subject -- had everything to do with success of the larger venture. (This differs from 'exploratory experience', such as brainwave stuff I imagine, in that 'expectation' may or may not be useful or even more harm than help in those cases.) There is quite a history in that field of some fascinating accidental results, such as very clear experimenter bias in effects (though not in protocol), and what they call the 'sheep and goats' effect (where some psychics will get data that others psychics they respect do--even wholly separated from any knowledge of it--and even when it's wrong!). There are very few science fields where one is actually measuring human perception of multiple people in a doubleblind environ without any physical input to the individuals, so normally fairly hidden things like rapport show up more clearly there.

    I spent a decent number of years studying and practising Magick. My mentor was a strong advocate of the virtues of psychedelics. During that time I learned to use a number of naturally occurring substances to achieve a wide range of mental states. Needless to say, there are problems with this strategy, and I have spent some years trying to recapture those mental states by other means.
    My experience with ceremonial magick didn't involve any altering-substances aside from incense and ritual (sex can also be a route though I only tried that alone alas ;-)). I had an older friend into that for awhile when younger. He told me it's like riding the bus. The sights are great but it's more look-than-touch, and you don't learn the route to get there on your own, so you have to kind of start all over again, even despite extensive experience, when one decides to do it 'naturally'. Sounds kind of frustrating to me!

    Loss of forward vision - when I close my eyes and visualise, or when I dream, or even under the influence of typical hallucenogenics, the imagery is just where I expect it to be - right in front of me. In the state I described it is, for want of a better word, 'encompassing'.
    Some psi experiences can be like that. Or you can just be in 'another' perception. Like as someone else. Or sort of existing "about where the wall is" but knowing-all like 3rd-perspective writing.

    I've just been reading back over this thread, and so engrossed in one thing I became, that I had forgotten the most important point in the initial post.

    In answer to the question, 'have I identified specific frequencies', I have said no, but the fact is that by suggestion I created a 'powerful' frequency.

    I had imbued the Schumann Frequency with power, by believing my hypothesis that the human brain established electrical equilibrium with our planet, suppressing sprious neuron interference.

    My experiment did nothing to disprove the hypothesis. No one has yet disputed the hypothesis.

    I can now sit down for a Schumann Frequency session with the full expectation of a mystical experience, because I know, on the basis of one successful experiment, and public acceptance of the hypothesis, that the Schumann Frequency works.

    It would be interesting to see what else one could convince oneself of.
    And whether convincing oneself could lead to useful and valid experience.

    Nobody could dispute the hypothesis except for themselves; you have already proved that it can work for you! Like the saying about how 'one white crow' is all it takes to prove white crows exist.

    Maybe a lot of "what works" is all about the individual and not as much about the technology.

    Best,
    PJ (RC)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Otaki Beach, New Zealand
    Posts
    437

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Hi PJ/RC,

    I am really enjoying reading your posts here and elsewhere - you're thoughts and writing style appeal to me.

    Just now I haven't the time to respond to your many points of interest, and to do so would require that I go into greater detail about some things that aren't well suited to a public forum.

    If you're interested in carrying this discussion off-board you're most welcome to email me.

    Cheers,
    Craig

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Schumann Resonance Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by RedCairo View Post
    Good point.

    Interested to hear any further thoughts on this. It relates to the topic at hand because people working out how to classify, categorize, accept or reject their own experiences is a good parallel to this subject. I think people working out how to communicate well about something without feeling like -- or frankly, looking to others like -- embarrassing numbskulls is important. ;-)
    This is a numbskull safe zone. If it makes anyone feel better, there are many times when I'm asking Robert a question about something or making a comment ... I often wonder (to myself) if the answer is really obvious and Robert's bonking his head against the wall thinking ... I'm a total moron. But then I send the message anyway because sometimes you have to ask "appealingly" stupid or obvious questions in order to understand something. Sometimes you can think you understand something but be missing out on a fundamental point that will augment that understanding.

    So all numbskull questions are welcome here.

    Sometimes though, I think a lot of what is on the inner is a reflection (if not the original blueprint generating the perceived outer reality) of the outer, and so has considerable meaning.
    ... and sometimes a duck is just a duck. It has meaning only if you decide to give it meaning.

    I think the biggest mistake made is that often people mistake what has meaning for them as what has meaning for everybody.
    Religions and New Age concepts are built upon this foundation. What really floors me is how many others they can convince to join them in their reality, no matter how bizarre.

    If I dream something about Craig, it mostly likely says something legit about how I feel about Craig, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the dream is legit about him outside of my own symbolic and individual perspective. If he's wearing combat boots in my dream that doesn't mean he's wearing them in real life. (It CAN on rare occasion, more for some people than others, but that is a separate subject, and inconsistent enough to be subjected to serious skepticism even by the dreamer, anyway.) I think projecting inner subjective meaning on the outer subjective world is where a lot of the new-age world (so to speak, that term is actually quite old and addresses the late 1800s as much as 2009) gets lost.
    Sometimes a dream is just mind poop. Sometimes dreams can reflect our deeper feelings on a subject or some unresolved feeling or issue. I've had some very weird dreams that I couldn't fathom a meaning from other than I have a very strange (but entertaining) imagination.

    In theory anything that happens which is legitimate to the individual is not really mystical except in 'vocabulary' and how others judge that. If I have a scalar coil and I turn it on, I feel something. Is that mystical?
    I think it gives people a feeling of importance, of feeling special if it is "mystical". It's also the "ego" side of things that an adept is suppose to be aware of.

    No. If I have a ritual or a dream I may feel something. Is that mystical? Well it's called that because the seeming-causative-factor wasn't something we could stick in a test tube. But really, what's the difference? IMO the primary difference is that we seriously lack "vocabulary for shared experience" on the more ineffable stuff.
    "Mystical" is one of those words that means something different to each person. What is a mystical experience to one person is a hallucination to another. What is consistent is that the person did enter an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... which is another one of those "nominalization" words. (A word that is treated like a noun but it has no physical substance to it and therefore it's meaning is dependent on the individual's perception).


    There's actually a white paper in anomalous cognition research called 'Intention, Attention and Expectation' that said the researchers believed from decades of experience that these three factors in place -- as well as a solid science protocol and a talented subject -- had everything to do with success of the larger venture. (This differs from 'exploratory experience', such as brainwave stuff I imagine, in that 'expectation' may or may not be useful or even more harm than help in those cases.) There is quite a history in that field of some fascinating accidental results, such as very clear experimenter bias in effects (though not in protocol), and what they call the 'sheep and goats' effect (where some psychics will get data that others psychics they respect do--even wholly separated from any knowledge of it--and even when it's wrong!). There are very few science fields where one is actually measuring human perception of multiple people in a doubleblind environ without any physical input to the individuals, so normally fairly hidden things like rapport show up more clearly there.
    I'm not sure I quite follow what you are saying in the above paragraph.


    My experience with ceremonial magick didn't involve any altering-substances aside from incense and ritual (sex can also be a route though I only tried that alone alas ;-)). I had an older friend into that for awhile when younger. He told me it's like riding the bus. The sights are great but it's more look-than-touch, and you don't learn the route to get there on your own, so you have to kind of start all over again, even despite extensive experience, when one decides to do it 'naturally'. Sounds kind of frustrating to me!
    I see ceremonial magick as another method of hypnosis with the intent to induce an Altered State of Consciousness. Because the act of the CM is hypnotic, the suggestion, which is the purpose of the ritual would manifest for those who have been successfully hypnotized. It's still a valid experience, though when you look at through a hypnotist's eyes, it does take the sparkle away.

    Maybe a lot of "what works" is all about the individual and not as much about the technology.
    I think about this a lot and have not yet formed a conclusion as to whether this is a good or bad thing. On the one hand, placebo is 50% successful (which is a higher percent than many drug tests). On the other hand, you get some outlandish claims that form harmful beliefs. For example, karma, which is all fine until something bad or tragic happens and the belief is transformed into something silly like that person is paying for a previous "bad" or that they made a spiritual agreement with the perpetrator or wanted to learn a lesson and therefore asked for the incident. This kind of thinking leaves people who have cancer or other terminal illnesses thinking that they somehow caused the illness - which is ridiculous and not helpful to the healing process.

    I'm finding that a lot of metaphysical beliefs are formed on the basis of a bit of science though I'm also finding that the science gets skewed to make the belief more workable. i.e. The Secret. It contains some science, though misquoted and misunderstood and some knowledge of the brain/mind but taken to the extreme. While it's true that our brain works to create that which we think about, the process does not occur by any form of magic. It occurs because of "Magick" (Will being directed) and when our will is directed and we are focused on an outcome, we become aware of the opportunities to make it happen and follow. ... If we were able to manifest things just by will alone ... there would be more spontaneous deaths etc. Ooops tangent .

    M.
    Marisa Broughton, MCHT, MNLP
    Canadian Distributor for Mindplace
    http://www.ayrmetes.com

    Hey, if someone makes a good post, don't forget to click http://www.mindplacesupport.com/foru...ations-40b.png at the bottom of their post to add to their reputation!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Schumann Resonnance at 7.83 Hz
    By Phalguy in forum Procyon
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2009, 11:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •