Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Conversating with Quantum Paranormal

Posted July 11th, 2009 by barbi hammond in paranormal

In Reference to:

Couldn't find any audio discussions on scientific investigations into paranormal phenomena. It may be posted to the wrong audio topic so guess this one will work as good as any, since the person conversating with is "Quantum Paranormal."

Quantum Paranormal wrote:

There's nothing wrong with rationality. It's simply the--hopefully, but atypically--logical deduction of experiences and their meanings. But rationalization can sway one from logical, deductive reasoning to incorporating mental overlays, and, combined with convictions and predispositions, as well as emotions, can create false cognitive ideas, meanings, and beliefs. This is all too common in the field of the paranormal, unfortunately.

response:

Just to reiterate:

Not asserting that there is something "wrong" with rationality. Consider self a highly rational and scientific person who is fully grounded in reality. What saying instead is that those who are firmly "anchored" to rational are stuck there and can't swim anywhere else in the vast sea. The anchor and tether will consequently be your only reality--which is partial and diminished. We must move beyond the stricly "rationalist" view whereby only rationality is the only correct form of perception whereby everything else is erroneous and fictitious. We must also move beyond the Green perspective whereby the irrational and prerational cannot be distinguished from arational. Understand where you are coming from about the field of paranormal investigation since emotion and other things can cloud a person's memory into thinking all kinds of imaginary things and inducing false memories. But eject the notion that manifestations of the arational are instances of false claims of paranormal phenomena. After all--anyone at any stage can experience paranormal activity because paranormal is below rational thinking.

Quantum Paranormal wrote:

Integral Psychology--a so-called "new age" theory. I'm assuming you're a Ken Wilber fan?

response:

Yes, has been criticized as being New Age in some circles. Many things about disagree with and think is New Age, but only Teal/Yellow personally so many things have learned so what do i know? But if you are asserting that stages of development or integral theory itself is New Age, you will have to explain to how KW, JG, SA, CG, DB, TM, P, M, WIT, the GC of B, the P P, SG, and many others and even AH are all New Age. If you cannot, then will have to conclude that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Quantum Paranormal wrote:

I said "so-called", as this is what I've heard of his theory. We can place labels on many things. You seem to readily assume and are defensive about this, something you don't need to be or do. This is evidence by the "I will have to conclude that you do not understand what you are talking about" statement--a very rude statement, but it's sometimes to be expected. People have their convictions, and when they're threatened, they can react in this manner. If I made you feel threatened, I apologize.

response:

The only only threat that you could possibly pose is physical threat and don't think QP is gonna stalk so why should feel threatened or get defensive by Quantum Paranormal? You do not appear to be congnizant of development. You are essentially asserting that developmental theories operate on faith or conviction--which indicates to that Quantum Paranormal does not understand what you are talking about. Not to be rude or defensive but to make a frank observation. Conviction requires faith or unshakeable belief without proof. This occurs at a particular stage of development called the mythical structure of consciousness. Thus, to assert that developmental theories are themselves based based on conviction is to collapse all stages of development including the rational stage to mythical. Don't know about you, but I do not operate on conviction and need proof. If by "conviction," you are referring instead to what you heard of the so-called New Age that exists in KW's theory--then you are operating on conviction because you are essentially taking on faith what others say without proof.

"Quantum Paranornal"? Is this an actual investigative field? Would think that such field would be far more controversial and New Age than developmental theory so not sure why you are so concerned with others' fields who are less New Age unless you have a complex. Are you actually investigating paranormal activity on the quantum level? Is there even actual scientific "proof" of paranormal activity? Wouldn't think so. Not to say paranormal phenomena doesn't exist--but am highly doubtful that rational science would ever disclose its existence because paranormal phenomena operate below the level of rationality so are effectively negated and extinguished by the rational if not explained away altogether. The impression that get is that due to the controversial nature of Quantum Paranormal field, you are sensitive and thus defensive to charges of New Age and wish to elevate the field to more legitimate science by projecting the complex of "New Age"and defensiveness onto others--including. That's just observation. Not to be defensive. Think need to do some shadow-work.

Quantum Paranormal wrote:

P.S. My original post was about rationality, and you responded with a long post pertaining to the theory of Integral Psychology.

response:

Was trying to help out since evidently you think that paranormal activity is disclosed on the quantum level or is "rational" when in fact it isn't rational whatsoever. Even when they manifest, the rational mind--if not altogether negating them--can "explain them out of existence" via mechanical-causal law so would be very very surprised if you ever encountered a "genuine" paranormal claim. The phenomena generally manifests during lowered-consciousness states which in turn dismiss as "false" due to its vital (emotional) and psychic (imaginary) nature. If you are approaching it from a predominantly rational attitude, you are insufficiently recognizing the basic structure of your investigative field. That's why there's no scientific proof of paranormal phenomena. Am sorry to say--but think that you are in a dead-end field. Only arational can make it visible. Not rational.

Gebser:

As long as parapsychology approaches its field with a predominantly rational attitude, it is working inappropriately. The rational interpretation, the the mental illumination of the pre-rational darkness merely destroy the darkness and thus its reality escapes our grasp. The essence of the arcarne, the occult, is its spaceless-timeless conceealment; it can never be made visible. Yet it could become transparent if we would perceive such phenomena arationally, and not approach them rationally or permit them to mislead us irrationally, or allow them to overpower us pre-rationally.

Paranormal phenomena isn't rational: it's below it. The phenomena manifests below and beyond rational thinking and that's why scientific investigations into paranormal phenomena tend to go no-where. The objective nature of rational science negates its effects. Little wonder that you run into so many so-called bogus claims of paranormal because you interpret emotion and imagination as invalid forms of realization inducing false memories and clouded perceptions.

Posted by on July 11, 2009 - Saturday - 1:31 AM

Full thread:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=136278781&blogId=499086044

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

On arationality. . .

Posted July 12th, 2009 by Charles Bowling

Hi Barbi,

I have (at least) two interests in your recent post.

First, there is the form 'monologue/dialogue' it employs; if i remember correctly KW has exercised a similar option. Additionally it reminds me of Genpo Roshi's voice dialogue methodology, something that i have found to be both useful and profound.

And second has to do with the use of the term arational. For obvious reasons it's a term that the thinking mind is apt to have difficulty. My tendency is to approach these things as simply as possible; toward that end perhaps it's worthwhile to consider the questions that the concept of arationality raises by seeing rationality through a developmental sequence, i.e. through time. Where past, present, and future are represented by the pre-rational, the rational, and the trans-rational, respectively. (By this scheme arational would be outside of time, and essentially referring to the timeless.) Happily we have words to describe this relationship, where; the link or methodology between the pre-rational and rational is through instinct; and where, the link or methodology between the rational and the trans-rational is through intuition. It also seems to me that this scheme leaves open the door of invitation to the timeless (to the arational), and from my admittedly simpleminded view, this is a good thing.

Warmly,

Charles

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted July 12th, 2009 by admin in response to On arationality. . .

This comment has been deleted by the author.

11 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Intuition: its place in a pet schema

Posted July 12th, 2009 by Charles Bowling in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hi Anne,

From my view intuition is best seen as part of a developmental sequence. In broad brush terms i suggest that humans evolved in terms of bodies or capacities. The initial basis for which was the physical body, its dominant mode was musculature. Next step was the emotional body, where early humans began to experience feelings. The next major step came with the unfoldment of the mental body, its dominant mode is thought. I doubt that there would be much disagreement over these three steps, although it may be a bit radical to say so i suggest further that the next unfoldment is through intuition; which as i've stated elsewhere tends to be faster than thought. Much less clear is what stage of unfoldment on the transcend and include path is next. In integral terms this is third tier territory, and as they say beyond my pay grade. But, it seems clear that this next step whatever it may eventually be called will have not easy but ready access to a non-dual space. I suspect this to be an error-free place, one might call it a world of truth.

When the sequences is looked at through a 30,000 foot lens is possible to discern a pattern, indeed an alternation. Oriental theory calls this alternation yin and yang; and in Western terms it can be thought of as day and night. And in human terms feminine and masculine. But before i get into trouble here, i hasten to point out that from my view all humans both male and female have feminine and masculine attributes, although the degree to which they are distributed, and/or acquired, is subject to considerable variety. In any case both are of equal importance and one cannot exist without the other.

However, humans also have a subconscious. One of the forms it takes is often called shadow. It's the place where unpleasantness (usually in the form of negative emotions )tends to get tucked away. Consider what happens when a male (or female in masculine mode) reacts to a given situation employing musculature, based on some thought (say a slight perceived or real) without reference (perhaps via repression) to the rights or feelings of others, who may be directly affected by this action. Obviously all sorts of misdemeanors and worse are possible in such a scenario. The principle at stake here is that each stage of this unfoldment has a mediating effect on its neighbors. Simply put feelings mediate between actions and thought. Similarly, thought itself is the mediator between intuition and feeling. And projecting this one step farther, intuition is the mediator between truth and thought.

Warmly,

Charles

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted July 12th, 2009 by admin in response to Intuition: its place in a pet schema

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

I like your intuition definitions and comments

Posted July 12th, 2009 by Ambo Suno in response to Intuition: its place in a pet schema

Hi, Charles. Now and often, I like your intuition definitions and comments.

I nod to your broad strokes of development and I like the languaging of it.

I am moved to comment on your sequence since I felt a hesitation in me when I read, "I doubt that there would be much disagreement over these three steps . . ." following particularly, "Next step was the emotional body, where early humans began to experience feelings." I don't disagree with the broad and general characterization. I do feel a question arise about the sense that it might convey the idea that emotions and feelings arise as a clearly demarked stage after the muscular stage has been established.

I would not be surprised if we could say that they almost co-arise, though the emotional system does later elaborate and differentiate considerably. I say this out of the assumption that early motivation and intentionality as well as pleasant and noxious sensory/perceptual functions are implicit in emotions and perhaps more complex feeling states. As an organism begins to survive it makes discriminations that I think could be said to have a feeling-out feature. It senses, it moves towards that which serves and is learned as pleasant and away from that which is noxious. Since we don't know all there is to know yet about this, it may be that there are even more complex proto-typical emotions or feelings.

In a baby and even a fetus at an earlier stage than we might imagine, I think there is this multiple relatively integral co-enaction among senses, nervous system, organ systems generally, including musculature, hormonal secretions, etc., as some of these components develop somewhat simultaneously, in the continuous context of all the rest, out of early differentiating cells, layers, tissue types. I'm not sure of all of the particulars, but it does seem to me that there is such a significant degree of co-enactment in cells and muscles and proto-feeling growth that I have a pause if the broad strokes of stage theory is held too firmly. You may have seen me hop into discussions about this in the past when the subject of thought being separate from emotions has come up.

I seem to be an emotiophile. That feels right. I think so.

Am I parsing this in a distracting way?

Thanks, ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Distraction!? Not at all. . .

Posted July 13th, 2009 by Charles Bowling in response to I like your intuition definitions and comments

Hi Ambo,

Cyber-chatting with you has always been a pleasant experience, and your input here is both welcome and appreciated.

I don't have a problem with the notion of these things co-a rising, especially at this stage of evolution. However it seems a likely to me that the very dim past of our unfolding consisted of what appears to me as periods of successive dominance. As nearly as i can tell, the way human evolution works is that each succeeding generation pushes its previous iterations into the past via sort of a logarithmic scale. This means that for example a teenager going through puberty in a matter of a few months or even a few years may refer to a past of several lifetimes or more learning to deal with this transition. I guess you could say this is part of my take on what it means to transcend and include.

Now it's an open question to me, just how did intuition exist (if at all) when the dominant mode of our early ancestors was primarily one based on feelings. One could argue i suppose that some potential for each new quality existed; but according to the way i understand integral theory, this is sort of tricky ground, especially in view of the theory's eschewing of metaphysics.

Warmly,

Charles

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

intuition

Posted July 13th, 2009 by Ambo Suno in response to Distraction!? Not at all. . .

Thanks, Charles.

"Now it's an open question to me, just how did intuition exist (if at all) when the dominant mode of our early ancestors was primarily one based on feelings. One could argue i suppose that some potential for each new quality existed; but according to the way i understand integral theory, this is sort of tricky ground, especially in view of the theory's eschewing of metaphysics."

I don't fully follow your entire thought/question/paragraph here, but I appreciate and get a hit off your first questioning sentence.

Emotions and feelings can be experiences and impulses. Impulses to live. To live, survive, understand, communicate. For one thing, emotions and feelings as impulse could drive intuition and the further engagement of sensation, perception and other processing capacities. Some of the processing could be thought and imagination of various sorts, some less "rational" and articulable, and they may return and rest in the person again as feeling, image, bodily expression and word.

This is a little riff that is stirred by your questioning.

ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

feelings of the body

Posted July 14th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to [Comment Deleted]

Anna (and if I may, may I call you "A."? I'll explain later):

That is a most fascinating thing you raise about feelings of the body as a way of intuiting what the rational mind cannot grasp. I did not begin having these most recent unsual events (which some call "paranormal" but which I in turn see as a manifestation of the arational) until breaking my vow of celibacy for four years approximately 1 month ago. I hope that this not having access to people any more is not going to disrupt my access to arational modes of perception.

In addition, up until a month ago (as you may notice), I strictly confined my discussions to rational scientific discussions. It was not until approxmately one month ago when I began to shift my focus to other topics of interest beyond rational objective science when I began to experience these unusual phenomena. Last night, for example--I uploaded a song and a picture from my computer to my Reverbnation music player which previously did not exist on my computer. Here is the link.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted July 14th, 2009 by admin in response to feelings of the body

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

I think we are talking about the same thing using different terminology..

Posted July 14th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to On arationality. . .

Charles (and if I may, may I call you "C."? I'll explain later):

We're on the same page. One slight difference, however, is that I get the impression that based on your comment above and your response to A. (I haven't read beyond that yet), you may have either skipped irrational (psychic/imaginatory realm, which refers to the mythic-amber stage) or have not differentiated the psychic irrational realm from the magic pre-rational (vital/emotive/instinctual realm, which refers to Gebser's one-dimensional magic). This one-dimensional magical structure of Gebser refers to perhaps the first three stage on the first tier on Spiral Dynamics or Ken Wilber such as beige-magenta-red and is "pre-rational," yet differs from amber-mythical, which is "irrational.".

One thing I like about Gebser is the fact that he does simplify the stages of development so that such concepts as the pre-rational can be clearly differentiated and distinguished from the irrational, which in turn is already abundantly differentiated from rational which are all, in turn, distinct from arational (which you, Wilber, and many others refer to as trans-rational but which Gebser refers to as arational).

But essentially--everything that you have said (with the exception of perhaps conflating the psychic/imaginatory/dream realm of mythic-amber with the vital/emotional/instinctive realm of magic)--is identical to Gebser except using different terminology. But instinct, in and of itself--is a pre-rational and one-dimensional magical manifestation, according to Gebser. Furthermore, Gebser objected strongly to the use of "intuition" which he found to be deficient--but I think may refer to the irrational realm of psychic phenomena so refers to mythic-amber.

I'll have to look it up to re-read what his exact objection is to the use of the word intuition. But as I am able to see it, those who operate below the integral structure are predominantly confined to their respective modes of realization. Not to say that we are no long "instinctive" once we become intuitive or rational but only to say that depending on the structure of consciousness, the phenomena itself will be interpreted differently or may even be explained out of existence entirely if not negated altogether, as in rational mind. As such I wouldn't see how an intermediary between these various modes of perception could be possible until mutation into arational (transrational) modes of perception, which are capable of making visible and concrete the reality of all modes of awareness without being negated by rational mind. This is because arational is superior to rational thinking and can negate rationality and disrupt its mechanical-causal laws and strictly chronological form of temporal time.. However, the way you put it is one way of looking at how arational works.

In addition, arational does indeed refer to what Wilber and most others refer to as "timeless," but in Gebser, "timelessness" refers to a specific structure of consciousness called one-dimensional magic, which is spaceless-timelessness. Thus, what most refer to as "timelessness" or never entering the stream of time (such as Silent Witness) is what Gebser refers to as pre-temporal archaic origin. The arational manifests as a conscious form of pre-temporal archaic origin. However, Gebser does not differentiate unmanifest formlessness of timelessness from manifest form of time and space but refers to them all in pre-temporal archaic origin. Thus, arational is conscious access to pre-temporal archaic origin. That is--access to all of time and hence, to the whole--past present and future in addition to pre-temporality or what you refer to as timelessness: which are all ever-present.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

On names and other personal arcana. . .

Posted July 15th, 2009 by Charles Bowling in response to I think we are talking about the same thing using...

Hi Barbi,

I agree that for the most part we are on the same page; in fact i used almost exactly those words in a recent post in a different thread in which you and i were involved.

I have not read Gebser, so i am in no position to comment on his works; however i got my start in things integral before KW elucidated his AQAL theory in SES. It began some decades ago when reading the late philosopher musician astrologer Dane Rudhyar, where i was first alerted to the works of Sri Aurobindo. His Life Divine, and Integral Yoga, were both illuminating and helpful. I especially liked his 'use everything ' point of view, as for the first time in my life my faults could be seen as something valuable.

It also happens that i'm more than a bit of an iconoclast (it's part of my birthright); this has meant that conventional wisdom has little sway with me, which when combined with an Emersonian self-reliance, i have been free to make my own mistakes. The sum of which has meant that an updated version of the perennial philosophy is something that is near and dear to me; and for better or worse the simplifier in me aims at translating it into terms that an average to bright eight-year-old could understand

You may of course address me anyway you wish; however my usual response when someone addresses me by something other than Charles my stock reply is, ”My friends call me Charles." It's both a statement of preference and a sincere invitation. This preference is based on what i call 'essential dignity' (it's roughly equivalent to Buddha nature), and it represents or is symbolic of our birth right. Nothing need be done to earn it, but often it is peremptorily disregarded or even pissed away; something that should be of no surprise witness the fact of being raised in a culture based on human worthlessness implicit in the notion of original sin.

Warmly,

Charles

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Manifesting the Arational via responding to Charles' response.

Posted July 16th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to On names and other personal arcana. . .

I beg your pardon, Charles:

The "one by _" has significance as I am noticing a pattern of avoidance of name-recognition of late in many I encounter. This is mostly done by mistake but may be a deliberate attempt to recognize the Godhead in everyone, or it may be way of pointing out how most of us are confined to our puny little selves called the ego-self and other identities that require recognition,"

The moment I made note of this on my public diary, two different songs began playing simultaneously: the one on my music player and another song which began to play through the speakers while the current song was still playing. Two different songs began playing simultaneously: the songs on my current music playlist that automatically play on blog and another song that came on the moment I posted the above. I want to hurry back and get to hearing two different sounds. Sometimes it produces a very strange "depth" of feeling that I cannot describe. Also, when I checked my music player Windows Media, nothing is on it. I do not know where the song is coming from, but it's coming from my speakers and I believe that it is a song from my playlist but can't remember the name of artist or song. Must look up. Or maybe must not. But am curious to know for myself what the piece is.

There is also a significance to the following set of numbers included into name signature, which I believe refers to point of location in space:

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Your ultimate reality--whatever or whoever it may be in your case--would like for me to point this out to you, Charles. Not to be disrespectful to your personhood or identity, but only to point out that there is too much attachment to personal identity and confinement to location in space and hence, possession by space in the mental-rational structure of consciousness.

Here is a copy of the report:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=136278781&blogId=500148728

I would like to return to your other thoughts, as well. Because "The Itself" would like for us to know why such concepts as I forgot: but the one you were referring to that starts with an "i" (intuition)? Is over-utilized as a term and is deficient for describing the arational character of the integral structure. BRB

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted July 16th, 2009 by admin in response to Manifesting the Arational via responding to Charles'...

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Friend, a gift to you from Spirit

Posted July 16th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to [Comment Deleted]

Friend,

I'm glad that you told me that because I kept confusing your name and could not remember if it was Anne, Anna, Astrid, Alforegetit(?), A., or some other name. So this is very helpful just to call you "Friend." I'm glad that my post was useful to you. It is human nature, I think, to react in that way. But I like that name, friend. This song I am listening to is about a friend. And the thing you said about "names" and the spelling of names I can relate with very well. I used to be that way as well. So this is a gift to me you from Spirit. Click it:

http://www.myspace.com/barbiwithnoeplease

The only way I am able to access Spirit is to extinguish myself. I'm trying to make every post I write a manifestation of the arational and concretion of the spiritual; and last night's response to Charles with the two different songs suddenly playing simultaneously at the moment of posting that message to Charles to public diary was a message from God. Not from "me." I don't want for it to come from "me" because I confuse things. I'm trying to make Spirit speak through me purely without my muddling up the information and confusing it.

Another reason that it is a manifestation of the arational and concretion of the spiritual is because as you can see, only one part of my response to Charles was in bold font. The rest was in normal font. What was put in bold was not by me, but by the Itself.

I'm not really sure what if I am asking for is reasonable any more from Spirit. I want to do what is required of me, but I don't know what it is do to any more other than to try to manifest the arational and concretion of the spiritual through the computer. But I would like to commune with humans; not with just computer. If this is all there is to it, then I just want to go back to the Itself but there's no where to go.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

On reading between the lines. . .

Posted July 16th, 2009 by Charles Bowling in response to Manifesting the Arational via responding to Charles'...

Hi Barbi,

I also agree that there tends, in our culture, to be an over emphasis on the separate self, especially when it comes to an attachment to what is essentially a convention, which turns out to be more or less a fiction (in the sense that it's not possible to be separate from the universe). However maybe it's worthwhile to point out that this attachment business is essentially an internal matter. And while it's possible to infer something of the internal condition from one's externals, it is in my opinion wise to be judicious when doing so.

For example i do not happen to be identified with the longitude and latitude where i live -in spite of the fact that there is a remarkable story about how i happened to come to reside here. The reason that this numeric location is shown in my on-line signature has to do with the other. It began some years back when i was first involved with an international cyber message board, and like the use of my name it also is intended to be an invitation to others to recognize and celebrate the fact that we are each joined by having a location. If we go little deeper, into this business of temporal location it's possible to come to see that time and space are actually interchangeable, and in that sense can be seen as signifiers of the non-dual.

If you still have some doubts about my position on the relative importance of the separate self i invite you to look carefully for my use in this space of the personal pronoun I. When it appears at the beginning of a sentence my practice is to use the uppercase form "I" out of respect for the common convention. In all other cases, use of the personal pronoun "'i" the lowercase form is used consistently. This use is a device, and is intended to address the problem of over-emphasis on the separate self that you raise.

And finally i do not consider an offer of my friendship to be without value; but acceptance of such an offer does come with some risk. I'm reminded of a case some decades ago when i made the acquaintance of an attractive young woman at Chicago's Art Institute. Her aim in life was to become the conductor of a symphony orchestra. I admired this aim, even though it is something extraordinarily difficult to achieve. I remember showing her how to hand craft bread, as part of the process of opening myself to her. But movement along that process came to a halt one day when she decided we needed to part ways. I asked her why. She said if I continue with you I will be changed. There was nothing in my repertoire of rejoinders that would make for a suitable reply, as both of us understood that she was simply stating what to us was a self-evident fact.

Warmly,

Charles

41N54'51' 88W18'31"

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

i Palandrome i and It Palandrome It by BRB

Posted July 16th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to On reading between the lines. . .

Hi Charles, Your device of using lowercase 'i' to address the problem of a separate self-sense does not work. Your insistence upon a name, your celebration of the fact of your self-worth, your reference to 'iconoclast' or whatever idol be that, your reference to a point of location in space (whether in reference to your point of "space" or to any others' point of location in "space" (and whether it be local, international, or universal)--doesn't matter in your case), your attachment to "I" or "i" (whether capitalized or lowercased), your attempt to change another or to impose via volition or personal will 'what is' (and then have it tied to your personal identity when it isn't), your valedictory of "Warmly," your salutation of "Hi Barbi," your references to "the Sun, which keeps on giving and giving and giving," your confusion of what is that word? Intuition with manifestations of the arational or trans-rational in the newest mutation (a word, incidentally--that has become over-utilized and deficient as a term and for this reason, no longer has the potency or potentiality to activate anything useful so is virtually useless as a term for the vast majority of people who use them let alone, effectual in activating anything whatosever that is genuinely arational in nature to indicate the newest newest mutation), your conflations of the pre-rational and irrational, your lack of cognizance of the arational, your attempts to unite these nonrational and arational elements with rational via synthesis to achieve something 'higher' (which has already been attempted by rationality via paradox and meditation), your attempts to us another word-- instinctive--as a device to synthesize or unite two different worlds (one rational, one below operational) is distinctive, your insistence upon a 'point' or a 'position' in not only space--but also in your thinking (which is distinctively unique to mentality and thus to thinking), your thinking that we are each joined via locality or spatiality (three dimensional space or spatiality--i.e., "depth space" although in your particular case, via referential points on a two-dimensional map on a three-dimensional coordinate-system--yet "separate" points of location in space in celebration of our individual differences, uniqueness, or oneness in three-dimensional spatiality), your reference to time and space as being interchangeable and signifiers of the "one by _" which is ultimately unidentifiable and immeasurable, and unnameable, your any ask of any offer of any friendship (which never expected)--only assumptions of personal value for your personal self-acceptance and validation, indicates to me that you are mental-rational and are demonic possession: not by Satan--but by space, your possessions, and your personal possession. How much is your worth? Are you sufferable? Too much? Can you be naked to the world? At any rate, the "one by _" or I Palandrome I would like for me to let you know that it is not stuck "in" space: but exists beyond it but are physically in it and that One by One or I by I exists in a realm of temporality that is atemporal and not in physicality. Arational manifestations brought to you while typing and listening to the following songlist up to the time of "I Palandrome I," and Ima Pirate. Also BRB: http://blog.myspace.com/barbiplease There is also a significance to the following set of numbers included into name signature, which I believe refers to point of location in space: 41N54'51' 88W18'31" Your ultimate reality--whatever or whoever it may be in your case--would like for me to point this out to you, Charles. Not to be disrespectful to your personhood or identity, but only to point out that there is too much attachment to personal identity and confinement to location in space and hence, possession by space in the mental-rational structure of consciousness. Here is a copy of the report: BRB

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Conversating with Quantum Paranormal

On arationality. . .

[Comment Deleted]

Intuition: its place in a pet schema

[Comment Deleted]

a stab at clarity

I like your intuition definitions and comments

Distraction!? Not at all. . .

intuition

[Comment Deleted]

intuition

feelings of the body

[Comment Deleted]

Whatever it is, I've been experiencing it.

I think we are talking about the same thing using different terminology..

On names and other personal arcana. . .

Manifesting the Arational via responding to Charles' response.

[Comment Deleted]

Friend, a gift to you from Spirit

On reading between the lines. . .

i Palandrome i and It Palandrome It by BRB