Hello Alain Stalder:
your article, reminds me of Karl Spiesbergerīs book
"praktische Telepathie", practical telepathy, (1946, pp 161, Herman
Bauer Verlag, Freiburg i. Br.).
Theme: "Thoughts, the mainpower of nature, how to send it - how to
receive it and how to protect yourself from other peoples thoughts." -
Karl Spiesberger mentioned then already the unconscious, but also
the deliberate conscious mental communication between people, for
all kinds of purposes. He had done tremendous research in this field.
A fascinating book (sorry, before ISBN)
Later on a man called José Silva, NM, USA created "The Silva
MindControl
Method" back in the early 1970ies. The book w. same title was
published in 1977 by Simon and Schuster (ISBN 0-671-81604-7)
Amazon still carries it, English and/or German.
The method, creative visualization, is geared to control your own mind
and
to consequently be able to heal yourself and others at a distance
(much
like Edgar Casey).
Thought these two books might interest you.
~~~
My personal thoughts about Pluto: never mind how physically
big or small anything is, the "influence" ought to be compared to
the various materials we find on earth.
Think of only one minute particle of plutonium, uranium, etc.,
standing
to close to the material - unprotected - which can and will do more
damage than tons and tons of most other material, proving also here
that "it is not the quantity, but the quality that counts" ;)
~~~
The question, if astrology exists: this is much like does chiropractic
(or any other type of healing method) exist ??
Of course they all do, but they do not all "work" on every body, as,
even if the methods are good, not all practitioners are equally
"good".
~~~
and on and on . . we could discuss this to the end of days . .
Thatīs all for right now. Always enjoy your articles.
Take care and
be well,
I.R.Heller
PS: this here given e-Mail of yours does NOT seem to work !!
"Hermes" <hermes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:hermes-96A19F.07441902062008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Unconscious Communication and Astrology
|
| [originally posted 12 May 2007 to aam, see also replies then...]
|
| This post is based on this simple assumption:
|
| People that are close can feel each other directly,
| even if they do not see, hear, smell, each other,
| and (to some degree) even if they are miles apart.
| That assumption, although (like astrology) at odds
| with contem****ary wisdom in the exact sciences, is
| one that is often made implicitly in everyday life:
|
| - If your lover is out of the house, does the felt
| connection suddenly disappear ? Is all that remains
| of your lover once she/he leaves the house just a
| bleak memory ? Could you not tell if something did
| happen to her/him once she/he left the house ? Would
| there be no difference if suddenly a heavy accident
| or even death occurred ?
|
| - Or what about the same with mother and child, etc.?
| Is there no real connection, is it just a naive wish
| of being connected, just something we would like to
| believe ? Just a naive superstition (like astrology)
| in the eyes of modern science ?
|
| - More astrologically formulated, feelings are about
| the element Water, i.e. about Cancer, Scorpio and
| Pisces. Do feelings remain in the "crab's shell" or
| are they universally connected (Pisces) ? Probably
| a bit of both, one would assume (Scorpio)...
|
| But let me take a step back and simply assume that
| people can feel each other directly (without a need
| to communicate explicitly via speech, vision, etc.),
| and see where that would lead...
|
| This means simply that people's brains are connected,
| just like individual brain cells in people's brains
| are connected to each other. In other words, the brains
| of all people form a large brain, an entity of its own,
| with not unlikely its own intentions and feelings, etc.
|
| But that is maybe a bit too simplistic: Any individual
| is mostly closest to just a few people, family, lover,
| close friends, then colleagues, casual acquaintances,
| and so on. So, you would expect not to have just one
| large "megabrain", but different "clusters" at different
| length scales.
|
| So there would often be a "family brain",
| composed essentially of the members of the family. Also,
| one could assume that certain interest groups, like, say,
| even a usenet newsgroup, could develop its own identity,
| with its own intentions, feelings, even fate.
|
| That is, of course, a concept that is not so unfamiliar
| to astrologers. Any entity like a family or a newsgroup
| has some kind of creation/foundation moment that (via
| the chart for that moment) gives that unity an individual
| soul and an individual fate (via planets at birth, and
| then transits, synastry, and so on).
|
| I will come back to astrology in a moment, but let me
| think the consequences of people feeling each other
| directly a bit further...
|
| Any such "larger brain" composed of many people's brains
| would know more things than each individual that is part
| of it. Some private thoughts of members of your family,
| for example, would not be available directly to yourself,
| but would be to the "family brain" as a whole. And, if
| you would somehow touch a theme that stirs up a "family
| secret", you would still feel something, maybe shy away
| from it, maybe get angry, etc.
|
| Now, the "family brain" might also have intentions that
| you are not aware of, maybe even intentions that are more
| complex than you can understand with your little single
| person brain. (Imagine maybe ants. They can solve quite
| complex tasks as a group, but the individual ants have
| no chance at all to understand these group purposes.)
|
| Such collective intentions can appear as *precognition*
| to individuals. For example, two "family brains" might be
| in contact and might arrange some meetings between some
| members of the family. For example, a guy and a gal could
| meet "by chance" somewhere in the middle of town, so that
| the meeting would appear like "fate" to them, and via
| emotional feedback from their environments, they would
| maybe think that it "was meant to be".
|
| And, in a way they would be right!
|
| That is, if you count family (or other group's) intentions
| as a miniaturized, limited form of fate.
|
| Face it: You can sometimes do things that you do not feel
| like doing for some time, but mostly you do what feels
| good and try to avoid what feels bad. ;)
|
| Thus, if feelings are not local, but directly influenced
| by what others feel about what you do, what you end up
| doing is quite heavily influenced by what others feel and
| want. Of course, that can be somewhat schizophrenically
| turned around, too: The family could want you to be sort
| of an individualistic person who strives away from how
| things are usually handled in the family, i.e. as it often
| is with feelings, different and even opposite trends could
| mix up and result in some quite ambivalent situations. For
| example, the strict self-control of a Capricorn is often
| fueled by fun derived on the inside (i.e. via feedback from
| the family etc.), from not doing what one likes. (This is
| what Freud called "Triebumkehr", reversal of instinctive
| drives).
|
| So, thus far the simple idea explains things that resemble
| "telepathy", "precognition" and even "fate".
|
| Let me add two more or so before returning to astrology.
|
| Why stop at humanity ? People often also feel quite a bit
| connected to their pets. Why not include also animals and
| plants into the picture ? Living and loving (feeling) are
| etymologically so close that there might be more to it
| than just mere superstition (like astrology in the eyes of
| contem****ary science). And then, maybe all of nature is
| alive to some degree as often assumed in the past, and
| maybe even these connections reach out into space...
|
| Now, with that picture, assume you take a few yarrow sticks
| and toss them to do some "divination", to query the ancient
| Chinese oracle "I Ching". The results are often in the eyes
| of the querent more than just "chance" or a "random result",
| but a meaningful description of the situation at hand.
|
| What if the result is influenced directly by feelings, by
| your feelings and by the feelings of people close to you,
| and extending to humanity, living beings, nature at large ?
| I cannot get much into quantum mechanics here, but what is
| an integral component of quantum mechanics is that what
| happens, what is measured (like when tossing yarrow sticks)
| is fundamentally indeterminate (with qualifications that
| would lead too far here), has some element of "chance" or
| "randomness" in it that is not explainable by lack of
| knowledge of an internal clockwork. But, if that element is
| covered by individual and collective intentions and feelings,
| it would become clear why the querying the I Ching or other
| divinations techniques just "work", as follows.
|
| The result of "divination" would then simply be the sum of
| all influences, with individual and close groups having often
| more influence (depending also somewhat on the question asked).
|
| Now, the word "divination" hints also at religion. What if
| the plethora of ancient Greek gods and myths was just a way
| of expressing the existence of different interest groups
| and concepts of collective psychology? That concept is not
| too unfamiliar, think C.G. Jung and psychological astrology.
|
| Taking it even further, what about a shell model of "God",
| with small gods ("family", "bridge club", "work pals") and
| then up to living nature in its entirety and self-created
| (the invisible, unique god jewish/christian/muslim religion)?
|
| But let me get back a bit more to the ground and try to
| explain something that maybe many astrologers will not like
| too much, because it detaches astrology somewhat from the
| stars. However, logical evolution of the presented idea
| leads quite naturally to it.
|
| Remember planet Pluto ? Discovered in 1930, it was initially
| thought to be as big as planet Earth, but today we know that
| it is just a small lump of ice and dirt, smaller than even
| that our moon, and just one of several similar lumps of ice
| and dirt in a similar orbit beyond Neptune. (Pluto is now,
| by a narrow margin, the second largest Kuiper Belt Object,
| the largest being Eris). And last summer in Prague, as a
| logical scientific consequence of the literal facts, Pluto
| lost its status as a planet.
|
| But that is only half of the story. People liked Pluto, many
| school kids wrote letters to keep Pluto in the NY planetarium.
| And, astrologically, Pluto has certainly strongly shaped the
| 20th century, with its wars and other im****tant transformations,
| and, of course, also strongly influenced individual lives.
|
| But, in light of the idea of people feeling each other, what
| if people just collectively *made* Pluto that strong, because
| its properties summarized some common needs and desires, at
| least for the time between about 1930 and now ?
|
| But, in that case, why not consider astrology as a whole as
| being mainly driven by collective wishes and intentions ?
| Maybe humanity as a whole has chosen to accept the balanced
| diversity of astrology, because it helps to survive in the
| world and to evolve ?
|
| Let me try to reformulate that in a bit more simple words:
| What if astrology is mainly driven by collective wishes ?
|
| What if astrological systems are just too useful for life
| that they are kept intact by collective feedback, even if
| they have somewhat detached from what actually happens in
| the sky above ?
|
| For example, there is no 12 constellations on the zodiac.
| There is just a bunch of stars scattered around the ecliptic
| that can be grouped into signs by cultural preference (for
| example, Western and Chinese constellations differ). And
| even if you would take the Western zodiac constellations
| as given, they are *far* from forming 12 equally spaced
| sectors on the ecliptic, and (due to precession) do not
| coincide with actual constellation in any significant way.
|
| Face it, astrology as it is used today, is largely a more
| abstract, psychological concept that has already largely
| detached from the actual stars. (That is not to say that
| there are no more natural connections to the stars, only
| that astrology as it is practiced today, has largely
| detached from nature in the concrete sense). ;)
| [...]I first published the above idea 2002, see discoveries.pdf
| contained in www.exactphilosophy.net/odyssey.zip . That
| do***ent is denser and I am much more specific about the
| details of how the connection is structured, in ways that
| go beyond what has even been said before about the subject.
|
| Liz Greene apparently saw the do***ent in 2002 and called
| it "too theoretical" (private communication), which is both
| true and completely wrong in a way: It is *abstract*, but
| very much based on experience and the deductive mind of an
| experimental physicist (me).
|
| Alain Stalder - )o+
|
| PS: a few posts by me to aam got stuck somewhere in cyber-
| space since mid May (nothing too special), they might show
| up eventually, or maybe not... ;)
|
| PPS: The Journal of Chinese Philosophy will publish an
| article in its June 2008 edition in which my web site is
| quoted. The article is about mathematical structures in
| the Yi Jing, and my observation that inside things tend
| to move if one is passive in contrast to outside, where
| things tend to come to rest (at human length scales),
| has influenced the article...
|
| --
| http://www.exactphilosophy.net
| Something different...
|
|
