posted 12-30-2000 02:33 PM            

art=science=spirituality.

But I'm afraid that in taking this line, I can't get a consensus of scientists or artists or spirituals to agree with me.

This is important because science is a consensus. What can't be agreed on can't be assimilated into the momentary canon of hypotheses.

Plus, many artists refuse to merge with science or spirituality, just as many spiritual folk refuse science or art. That's why, though I may like your breakdown of distinctions, as someone who works as a critic and journalist I feel more compelled to recognize more conventional boundaries between all three, though not necessarily the definitions that most people abide by, just so people will understand what I write.

posted 12-30-2000 02:45 PM            

You stretch science into the spiritual much further than a scientist could admit to.

Roman reduces spirituality to the material-scientific to the extent that spirituals can't follow him in.

What I like to do is hop like a nomad from model to mode without pulling the values of the model I just left behind. That way I can be scientific when with scientists, spiritual when with spirituals, and artistic when with artists.

Okay, so call me ideologically promiscuous. But "nomadically shifting" is the most pragmatic way to engage with all human-positive models.

posted 12-30-2000 03:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
Which makes me realize why you and roman74 can't agree at all.

You stretch science into the spiritual much further than a scientist could admit to.

Roman reduces spirituality to the material-scientific to the extent that spirituals can't follow him in.

What I like to do is hop like a nomad from model to mode without pulling the values of the model I just left behind. That way I can be scientific when with scientists, spiritual when with spirituals, and artistic when with artists.

Okay, so call me ideologically promiscuous. But "nomadically shifting" is the most pragmatic way to engage with all human-positive models.

I say human-positive, because to shift into a human-negative model like tyranny, racism, or facism is destructive of the very relativity of shifting -- as well as potentially destructive to human welfare.

---

posted 12-30-2000 03:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Denecius:
But I can't help but think that somewhere along the line, the two will merge into an integrated understanding of science and spirit.

---

These distinctions are breaking down all the time for people, including those who champion the separate models. But there will always be some distinction necessary.

Look at it this way:

Spirituality is the largest human system. Everything and anything can be used as a springboard for the spirit. That's because God or the Whole (whatever your preference is) is everything and more, and spirituality is the attempt to reunite with it all.

Art is also an expansive concept, but not as big as spirituality. That's because art uses physical things to embody or represent our relationship with the world. Even when making spiritual art, we are still focusing on the individual we happen to be, and the individual medium we use (say film), and that individuality and worldliness counters the expansion of the spirituality we feel when making art. We are still working with things in the world, and that keeps us rooted to the world, even if the attempt is to use art as a means to go beyond the physical world.

Science is the smallest system of the three by highly reflexive choice. It treats only those things that are physical or physically based, primarially only those things that are shared by all human beings. And only those things that can be conveyed through a universal system or language like mathematics or logic.

Spirituality embraces everything.
Art reaches for everything, but remains rooted to the physical world.
Science focuses only on the small part of the world that is shared by all through language.

It's impossible to fit the bigness of spirituality into the smallness of science. And though art is the best portal between the two, it should never be confined to the small
world of science, yet at the same time it can't fill the vastness of the Whole.

posted 12-30-2000 04:26 PM            

Your clear thinking is beautiful, your presentation excels. I have much to learn from you.

Thank you for sharing your experience at
Assisi.

If your screenplay "Anthony in the Desert" is on Greenlight, I will read it otherwise
e-mail me at Satire@WriteMe.com

My screenplay is about Aquinas and Aristotle questioning the exixtance of God, so you might have an interest.

Thanks

Satire.

posted 12-30-2000 04:53 PM            

The problem I have with roman, aside from his snide manner, is that LOGICALLY, if he is trying to "enlighten" us, or change our perceptions, then he is essentially in the same position as Madison Avenue: he needs to convince us, to sell us.

Ergo, being rude, and repeating the same snide comments does little to help his cause,and is therefore...illogical.

It would be like the president of Firestone Tires getting on TV and screaming, "What the fuck is wrong with you people: we didn't kill ALL of you!"

How is that going to help?

Who is he going to convince?

So, I have a problem with the LOGIC (or lack thereof) of roman's premise: he would like to live in a world where people shared his view, and that's why he keeps kicking us.

Because, it ain't workin', pal.

But I've got way better things to do then sit here in a pissing match with him: on my planet, he is *pooof*, history.

posted 12-30-2000 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
These distinctions are breaking down all the time for people, including those who champion the separate models. But there will always be some distinction necessary.

---

Well, yes, there is validity in your thoughts, but I maintain that they are part of the same thing: the mandate of human consciousness to follow a path of progressive evolution. Spirtual understanding is the fuel, and the intelligence. Art is a means of expressing that intelligence, and science is the means of trying to understand that intelligence and integrate ourselves with that higher intelligence. I agree with the need for distinction, for we individually have developed our expression in descrete manners, with the exception perhaps of individuals like DaVinci, who had developed his consciousness to express genius in the sciences, art and engineering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
Spirituality embraces everything.
Art reaches for everything, but remains rooted to the physical world.
Science focuses only on the small part of the world that is shared by all through language.

---

I agree, with the caveat that we are talking about science with a small "s", meaning science as it is understood today. The true science of spirit is another matter. Spirit works with the same principles of energy. Propogation of wave forms, harmonics, electromagnetic principles, frequency relationship. Our terrestrial physics is merely a shadowed understanding of the dynamics of universal principle. As for art, I think that the artist who understands and works with this higher awareness adds qualities to the completed work that transcend the work itself. Their art, in whatever form, touches the spirit of their audience, and delivers a powerful influx of spiritual understanding to the observer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
It's impossible to fit the bigness of spirituality into the smallness of science. And though art is the best portal between the two, it should never be confined to the small world of science, yet at the same time it can't fill the vastness of the Whole.

---

posted 12-30-2000 06:00 PM            

Two recommends out of nine reviews. I might have hit some very sensitive nerves on this Screenplay.

It has nothing to do with Religion, only God.

Francis of Assisi and Aquinas have so much in common, I am sure happy "Anthony in the Desert" made the top 250.

Congratulations!

Satire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
And that's a pretty heady SP there. Did your reviewers get it?

(I'm really afraid to hear your answer.)

---

posted 12-30-2000 07:26 PM            

I think sexuality, including multiple partners, can be a very spiritual undertaking (then again it can not be, too). But we can hardly fault Medieval minds for agreeing with the dominant mindset of the day, and there really is something to be said about unleashing higher powers within us by abjuring worldly practices. I just think that when something like celibacy is required by an overarching authority, it dimishes the responsibility of the individual, which also diminshes the spiritual impact such a sacrifice can have. But they didn't see things that way, especially as obedience was the order of the day.

posted 12-30-2000 08:02 PM            

I can appreciate where you want to go with your "science of spirit," I'm just not sure that science is the accurate thing to call it.

You've seen that scientists are open to spirituality. They're just not open to calling it scientific. Even if you substitute a concept like "energy" for spirit, you're still making inferences about that energy that scientists will never agree to because they can't be demonstrated on demand. And science demands demonstrations to be repeatable.

Psychologists still have to fight to call their study and practice a science because there is so great a variability in the subjects studied. The patterns of human behavior won't fall into a strict accordance or pattern.

Spirituality is even more predicated on the unique experience, and it is wholly unpredictable, at least in observing any sign of spirituality.

And do you really want to give up control over describing your spiritual experience? For that is what you have to do when you enter the arena of science. Your spirituality will have to undergo the scrutiny of hundreds, perhaps thousands of researchers. And it's their ultimate consensus that will decide whether your spirituality is scientific.

This is supposed to weed out individual bias in favor of the most compelling evidence, and for the most part it does. But the problem is collective or cultural prejudice do still seep in the consensus, as they have to.

You have more autonomy over your own spirituality if you don't call it a science. Do you really want to give this up?

I suggest using the term "model" instead. Scientists respect its use outside of science, and it can mean many of the things that "hypothetical science" means.

posted 12-30-2000 10:22 PM            

So... anyone read THE KYBALION? It's the closest description and proof of God I've yet to find. 'Cept for a brief fling with Samadhi when I was younger. If you've read this I'd love to discuss and further my education.

Here's a funny ting... I once believed I had the power to move electricity with my mind.

This came about because I was doing an off-Broadway show playing a mad scientist during which I had to spend 2-hours in a glass booth with a Jacob's Ladder, you know - those little boxes with two rabbit ear wires with an arc of electricity between them that repeats travelling up. Well, I got kinda bored at times. When I didn't have a scene, I'd concentrate on the Jacob's Ladder. I decided to become friends with it, to recognize it as a conscious entity, and to try and tame it. Every night I'd commune with the electricity much like you would a pet. Feeling it's rhythm. One night, I telepathically told my friend, the electricity, to stop - to freeze in its tracks. This was live onstage in front of an audience. I WAS SHOCKED when the electricity froze in its tracks, until I mentally told it to keep moving. I'm sure my face must have been shining with bewilderment.

The next night, the same thing happened. In fact, from then on whenever I thought "stop" the electrical current would stop. I pushed it further. I decided to psychically make the electrical arc reverse its current. Which is impossible. I told it to go back down, and sure enough, the arc reversed back into itself, until I psychically released it and it flew up the wire and disappeared.

The play closed, I lived my life thinking I could control electricity.

5 years later, a friend doubted my power. So I bought my own Jacob's Ladder - and from the moment I plugged it in, I was immediately able to control its electrical current as well. My power lived!

I decided to conduct some experiments, to verify my psychic power. First I psychically held the electricity in a frozen moment, then I took my hand and passed it back and forth around the Jacob's Ladder.

oops.

A pinpoint of intensely focused air shooting out of my nose was causing all the electrical acrobatics. I was completely unaware that my body had somehow found a way to fulfill my psychic thought. I tried to blow the air out of my nose and do the same tricks as before.

I couldn't do it.

It was only in believing myself to be in some sort of psychic communion with that electricity, was I able to unconsciously affect the absurd physical act of focusing nasal breath.

posted 12-31-2000 06:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostfairytales:
Rico, I know this is much later than when you told your "happenings" in your place in Louisiana. I had similar experiences in that state...well, lets just say anywhere I go. But the last house I lived in Louisiana was the worst. That house had its own mind. It did things that I wish I never experiences. My sister-in-law said that she say a lady go to the hall of the room my brother and her was living in and the next night a man with something in his hand coming after the women. She also said she saw a young child. But what totally scared me was the spirit that follows me no matter where I go. It is what I know now as a demon. This demon seems to know my worst fears. In fact, it knows just how to wake me from the deepest of sleep and make me cry. I've done that several times due to that spirit's account. This spirit caused me to have insomia really bad and to go to bed with my music on. I use music to block out the things I don't want to hear. I often do that because things happen to me when I don't have anyone near me. This spirit was mean and evil and seemed to enjoy causing me so much pain. I learned that a black candle absorbs all the dark energys in the house. Well, funny how the candle just HAPPENED to have disappeared in the house. Well, I do have a friend who died that I call on ever so often to protect me. Well, one night, I felt I needed him. He was trapped by that evil spirit. I felt it in my bones how he wanted so bad to help me, but couldn't. It tormented him how bad I was getting it from that spirit. That spirit came with me when I moved to Utah. I know it did. How? Well, my brother's house needed alot of light bulbs because they kept burning out. I would just walk into a room and the light would blow out. One day, I was walking to my brother's apartment and I was passing by some apartments. This guy and his friend are at the doorway of their house. Funny, the voice of the evil spirit said, "They have guns. They are going to get you." Well, I didn't know where the voice came from because it wasn't a whisper it was echoing in my head and so I ran home after that. The spirit I fight lives on, but I know how to get it where it doesn't want to be. It took me some time to have figured it out. That house in Louisiana caused him to get really, really strong and powerful. I hope to never go to that house ever again. Of course, the house was built over an indian mound and 100 feet from the backyard was a cemetery.

---

posted 12-31-2000 08:16 AM            

I neglected to mention yesterday that Denecius also made the top 250 with his screenplay "There's This House"

Congratulations Denecius!

I wish both you and Franciscoassisi a rise to the top.

One of my mandatory script reviews also made
the top 250. The 50th Class reunion. I feel good about helping someone get there.

Satire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satire:
Hi FranciscoAssisi:

Two recommends out of nine reviews. I might have hit some very sensitive nerves on this Screenplay.

It has nothing to do with Religion, only God.

Francis of Assisi and Aquinas have so much in common, I am sure happy "Anthony in the Desert" made the top 250.

Congratulations!

Satire.

---

posted 12-31-2000 09:04 AM            

Your ability seems truly unique, and it is the very thing that parapsychologists love to study. Have you volunteered yourself to any researchers? You could contribute to the advancement of paranormal research.

About it being spiritual, though:

I can't tell anyone what their experience is to them inwardly; I can only comment on its manifestation as an observable event or as it is being described. That said, I want to say that although your ability may be the product of some spiritual state you are in, or some spiritual evolution you've gone through (who knows really?), but what you describe is itself a physical event. Your mind may be controlling or particpating with electricity, but that thing we call mind could still be translated into physical terms.

Of course, since Einstein suggested that energy and mass are interchangeable, people have hypothesized that spirit may be interchangeable with energy and mass (as Denecius suggests). But that still isn't the spiritual experience itself. The spiritual experience (at least as I define spirituality, you may think otherwise) is the total of what you've felt physically, emotionally, intellectually and your interaction with the physical world of nature around you, plus a whole host of things I can't even begin to imagine.

For instance, how you felt about yourself after your discovery. A psychologist can't claim to describe that, s/he can only describe the patterns that feeling fits, or the categories it can be assigned to as an observable or describeable event. But a psycholgist can't use psychological principles to describe what you felt or what you want to turn that feeling into.

Spiritual talk, on the other hand can incorporate all that is physical about your experience, all that is emotional (psychological), all that is meaningful, all that you feel, all that you imagine, all that you worship, etc.

posted 12-31-2000 09:12 AM            

I think science has done a lot to keep religions from being the prejudiced-warring-autocratic-power-mongers that they became over the centuries.

As I see it, all he was doing wrong was confusing science's need to restict itself with some (small minded) scientists' ambition to restrict others. Better he widen his mind by interacting with others who disagree with him than be ostracized and made defensive.

posted 12-31-2000 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
Why get rid of roman? He's got a spiritual side too. And "his" science can really advance spirituality in the world even if he doesn't know it.

I think science has done a lot to keep religions from being the prejudiced-warring-autocratic-power-mongers that they became over the centuries.

As I see it, all he was doing wrong was confusing science's need to restict itself with some (small minded) scientists' ambition to restrict others. Better he widen his mind by interacting with others who disagree with him than be ostracized and made defensive.

I hope that didn't sound like a lecture.

---

Hi francescoassisi. It did sound like a lecture, but that's alright. I could feel Roman's hostility and it was casting negativity on us, which, I'm sorry, is not a good thing. He was insulting too many people, and, instead of trying to understand what we were saying, he was dismissive. Isabel (Izzy) was about to stop posting replies because he became so abusive. We had to talk her into continuing. Then if anyone replied to his retort, he would insult them, sometimes very nastily.

He really didn't contribute much, either. His only arguments were that we were making it up, going by our desires that there be a God or someone to comfort us. And although that might be true in some cases, it would be a mathematical impossibility for that many people that have reported these experiences to have made them up because they wanted to believe there was a God or whatever.

He wouldn't listen to any of our facts or logic. Personally, I am glad he's gone. I'll say a prayer for him again today. God usually listens to me when I pray for someone.

posted 12-31-2000 10:38 AM            

The people who confuse science with what ought to be in the world often have a problem with "making things up." They don't realize that science is also "making things up," since it is based on human interpretation of sensation and perception. Mathematics, too, is just making things up. It's just a very regulated and shared way of "making things up." You know, the whole consensus thing. Like voting for what seems most real. The vote determines the real. THE REAL DOES NOT DETERMINE THE VOTE.

They don't see the glory in making things up. We are like God (or gods) in this way. We have the ability to infinitely make things up. We can't do anything but make things up, even when we are destroying them. And science is helping us (through technology) to make things up in ever-increasing and practical ways.

It's a sad confusion. If only they could see that science is a way to make things up more practically.

posted 12-31-2000 04:15 PM            

Frances is an admitted relativist. He jumps and his points scatter as he floats from topic to topic with no real points, just a word salad of ideas. I purposely skip over his posts now. People seem to like what he writes, so maybe he's a good writer. But when it comes down to putting words to reality, he doesn't come close.

Denecius, whom I like the best of all of you, was smart enough to sit back and relax and pay attention. He still believes what he wants to but he doesn't try to convince the rest of the world of his beliefs in the supernatural or new age hocus pocus. That's something I respect.

psichick is one of those stubbornly ignorant people I spoke of before. She believes that hunches and instincts are proof of psychic phenomenon, and when I dismissed that, she jumps to something else. This is what I refer as to the plea bargain approach: "Just make me partially guilty of ignorant crimes," I hear her cry.

Route6 is just a cry baby. He/She won't even read documented proof of neural materialism, and insists anything to the contrary is unbelievably true. Even though consciousness has been successfully experimented to exist and be solely isolated to an individual brain, he/she insists against it for no other reason than he/she doesn't like it.
-----

What you're all afraid of is that materialism imposes some threat to your individuality, your imagination. As a writer, I would never encourage something like that. What I've been asking for, (and was basically laughed in the face), was for more responsibly-minded beliefs.

Your experiences are unquestionable. However, your individual perceptions leave a lot of credibility behind. Nothing anyone has stated has rised above the fact that you believe what you do because you want to, not because it exists independently of you.

With science, and it's agreed upon values, there is room to eliminate these inconsistencies from your lives. I really don't know why people need to cling to stories and (truly) unbelievable tales to get you through your days. Are your lives truly that unbearable otherwise??? Writing about these things is one thing, but truly believing them as valid perceptions of the world is ludicrous. Creating these kinds of illusions is the major cause of world conflict; everyone thinks their illusions are the best.

Science argues for a more practical, consistent world-view. And this doesn't have to limit imagination, creativity, or having fun. It's simply a better way of explaining the world than settling for convenient conclusions in the meantime. And that's all you're doing. You don't know why things happen, so you immediately credit them to supernatural intervention, so-called psychic phenomenon, or new age hysterics --- instead of simply admitting you don't know.

In fact, what you do by settling for these convenient conclusions is not only a form of stubborn ignorance, but they are irresponsible beliefs that say it's okay to make up things instead of doing a serious investigation. You also are victims of promoting these irresponsible beliefs. You all are victims of anthropomorphism. You think because you believe something is true that it is indeed a valid part of reality - which propels humankind with some superificial importance.

It's true, whether you want to believe it or not, that we're all just sacks of cells interacting with each other and the world around us, and none of it is any more important than anything else. No matter what kind of perceived holistic importance you put as a label onto yourselves.

No, reason and logic are not a form of gospel, but they help rid us of the inconsistencies that people like you propose. And what it always comes down to is you settle for convenient conclusions because your emotions needs some kind of comfort and security. That's what this whole thread is about- emotions out of control. Being rational is NOT being close-minded or close-hearted, it just means getting a grasp on the situation and on your own emotions.
You people have gone out of control and that's why your theories are on the fringe --- because it is obvious you speak with your emotions, rather than rational thought.

Remember when I stated, the easiest test to see if these ideas are made up is to start questioning them and then watch all the people get defensive?? It's true. Read over your posts and tell me your emotions have not been attacked. If you haven't learned to deal with your emotions in practical, rational ways, you will settle for convenient conclusions- and when tested, it's always your emotions that strike first.

posted 12-31-2000 04:20 PM            

quote:

---

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-Ben Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

---

posted 12-31-2000 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

"Imagine the ego of the human race, to consider themselves so grand, as to warrant a creator worthy of praise."
-Robert Brunswick Jr.

---

posted 12-31-2000 06:41 PM            

Frances happens to offer the most competent, reasoned, informed arguments to your monotonous, meaningless diatribes. I'm not surprised you won't read his responses. You are not interested in a dialogue.

Your snotty, insulting demeanor reveals a malformed ego. Your dad musta intellectually whipped you as a kid, because you are not communicating in an efficient, effective manner. While your points are literate enough, one can't help but look beyond your words to the tone in which they are constructed. A whiny little picked-on kid lies within. Try a little humility.

I sense you truly believe your belief system would make the world a better place. Which is noble. But the means you try to subjugate others to your beliefs is entirely oppressive and demeaning.

now I did forget my point in responding, but overall I just wanna say - "you're wrong! nyah nyah!"

I've studied Tarot - that's my main thing. The WHEEL OF FORTUNE card relates to your beliefs. The card depicts the world as a mechanical universe. Every single thought, action, belief is the result of conditioning, an external chemical response. And I totally believe this to be true. We are just a sack of cells responding to each other. This discussion has been foretold already by our conditioning and experiences. The belief in a God or a higher power is pre-determined by someone's cellular composition. The idea of free will is a myth.

And with this cellular freedom, we can still concentrate our cells to a concept of God - or cellular totality - if our conditioning so permits.

posted 12-31-2000 08:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyTerror:
Frances happens to offer the most competent, reasoned, informed arguments to your monotonous, meaningless diatribes. I'm not surprised you won't read his responses. You are not interested in a dialogue.

---

Frances isn't interested in a discussion of rationality or practicality. He likes fancy, irresponsible beliefs. He's looking for like-minded people who seek the same form of comfort and securities for his irrational emotives. This, in all fairness, is not an interesting dialogue to me.

quote:

---

I sense you truly believe your belief system would make the world a better place. Which is noble. But the means you try to subjugate others to your beliefs is entirely oppressive and demeaning.

---

There's nothing oppressive, I believe, about words on a screen. If, however, they get right to the heart of the matter, then this is my purpose. I don't waste time with flowery words or lovely wishes and thoughts about how I think the world should be. I write about how the world works. In short, dreaming about a better world doesn't make it happen. I'm certainly not hurting anyone by posting words on a screen, and nor am I physically oppressing anyone. I don't believe anyone deserves such powers. I can see from the varied responses here that my words are hitting home. However, instead of taking these things to heart, people are acting on stubborn dispositions. Like I said, I'm here to challenge people to do better. If they find this too difficult, then I suggest they step aside.

quote:

---

now I did forget my point in responding, but overall I just wanna say - "you're wrong! nyah nyah!"

---

I know you're being silly here, but what have you really said besides you don't agree with me, or that you don't like my no-nonsense approach to dialogue? Not much. Maybe you're one of those people who should step aside.

quote:

---

I've studied Tarot - that's my main thing. The WHEEL OF FORTUNE card relates to your beliefs. The card depicts the world as a mechanical universe. Every single thought, action, belief is the result of conditioning, an external chemical response. And I totally believe this to be true. We are just a sack of cells responding to each other. This discussion has been foretold already by our conditioning and experiences. The belief in a God or a higher power is pre-determined by someone's cellular composition. The idea of free will is a myth.

And with this cellular freedom, we can still concentrate our cells to a concept of God - or cellular totality - if our conditioning so permits.

The ultimate goal of the study of astrology is to become the 13th sign. The 12 signs signify pre-determined responses to external stimuli. It's a paradox, the idea that there could be a ghost in this machine of life, but the concept of paradox has as much cellular impact as anything else, by your own words.

---

I'm not going to comment on the Tarot part of this reply. You probably already know how I feel about it, but if it only serves as a metaphor for you, then that's okay.

I do have to say, that I don't see the world as mechanical or robotic. I see everything as very organic - the universe as a living organism, if we need a metaphor. I also believe that we are each totally responsible for our own thoughts and actions. Environmental conditioning aside, we have the will to control and manipulate our environments on a very small level. I also believe none of this requires supernatural or extraordinary explanations; those things convolute the truths we face.

Consistent with a responsible world view is that free will is real, otherwise we don't have the responsibility to choose better choices. Each one of us has the ability make responsible decisions. This also doesn't require extraordinary explanations.

posted 01-01-2001 04:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isabel:
Guys, I moved already!
Happy New Year
Love, Isabel

---

Marlena! Welcome back! Happy New Year! Don't forget to send me your new phone number. I've been real busy but I should be able to call you this Thursday night.

posted 01-01-2001 04:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostfairytales:
The herbs vary. The strongest smelling herbs chase the evil spirits away, but that alone doesn't chase them. You have to sprinkle them onto a candle and burn it either during the day or throughout the night while you sleep. It is whenever you sense the thing is there. You must do it as soon as you feel it because it will scare you to the point of not doing it. Trust me, it has happened before.

---

posted 01-01-2001 05:11 AM            

Roman - you said, "psichick is one of those stubbornly ignorant people I spoke of before. She believes that hunches and instincts are proof of psychic phenomenon, and when I dismissed that, she jumps to something else. This is what I refer as to the plea bargain approach: "Just make me partially guilty of ignorant crimes," I hear her cry."

First of all, you dismissed the hunches and instincts I spoke of WITHOUT ANY GOOD ARGUMENT! Then I did not jump to something else, this thread is about spirituality, etc. So, I offered you facts which support the existence of a link to a higher-self at least, if not to God. You couldn't answer me, because you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH! It is YOU who are ignorant! I AM stubborn, but, unlike you, I am not ignorant. I do not address something I don't know enough about, like you do! If you want to get into debates, you need to do a little studying. Using quotes out of context does not count!

You also said, "Your experiences are unquestionable. However, your individual perceptions leave a lot of credibility behind. Nothing anyone has stated has rised above the fact that you believe what you do because you want to, not because it exists independently of you."

You've apparently forgotten that it is very easy for us to remember what you said before, like telling me I made everything up! What a lost soul you are.

I will renew my praying for you. Hey, guys, I think we should all pray for Roman - something like asking God to reach his heart and open his mind. How about at 4 p.m. this afternoon? Anyone wish to join me?

posted 01-01-2001 05:44 AM            

Roman, you say I should "step aside"? Where do you get off? This thread is not about you. That is the very type of oppressive behaviour I'm talking about. You seek to oppress, THAT'S what makes you oppressive.

God mister, you really have an overinflated ego. It prevents you from any perspective.

Now Frances has responded to your arguments point by point. He has offered proofs, evidence. He's quoted better scientists. He speaks your language. If you can't see it, you are only looking for a mental blowjob.

I've offered concrete evidence of true life psychic experience. The story of the car without a driver trying to run over my friend after the spell I cast really happened to me. Now, I don't expect you to believe me, you don't know me. I would never believe something like that unless I was there. But in this case, I WAS THERE. There were 8 people that heard the account when my friend came rushing back. He was actually out walking with another person who witnessed the whole thing. This is not something that is a subjective belief of mine, it is a real event. I understand you not believing it, but try and see it from my perspective. If something like that happened to you, would you still deny the existence of psychic possibilities? And yet you expect me to?

posted 01-01-2001 11:23 AM            

That's why I included Richard Rorty, the leading exponent of Neo-pragmatism in the world today in my quote posts.

But Rorty, like Dewey, James, and Pierce (the turn of the century Pragmatists) fought against the kind of positivism and materialism that you post. For that matter, most 20th century philosophers rallied against it. That's the tradition or reason, after all.

Since roman won't read my posts, perhaps someone could kindly ask him to read the quote post where the minds who are recognized around the world are cited writing against such narrow-mindedness.

But I'll try again: I love reason and pragmatism. But there spheres are limited and they cannot treat the topic of spirituality. But that does not mean they state that spirituality does not exist. I have never read any of the great scientists stating that spirituality does not exist. They only admit that they cannot touch on spiritual issues because they reside outside the concerns of science.

I simply can't understand why you don't read the passages where they say this.

posted 01-01-2001 11:44 AM            

Thanks for the info on sage - do you buy the fresh sage and then dry it before you use it? Do you also use it with candles? Or is it more in the line of the Indian custom of burning bundled herbs? (I know I'm a pain, but how am I gonna learn if I don't know all the details??) So help me out, please! Thank you!

I have nothing more to say to Roman, who lies and distorts the facts to cover-up for his lack of knowledge and logic. All I intend to do about him is pray for him. If I notice that he savagely attacks someone, you can be sure I will address his behavior, too.