From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:48:47 +0000
Subject: [Psi] Welcome to the List II
Alan Hughes wrote:
>It is often difficult to find out exactly what is being done in
>parapsychology at the moment, because of an atmosphere of secrecy
>and "if only you knew what I know."
You're right -- in terms of methods, at least. Parapsychology as far
as scientific research goes is, except in some cases, pretty open --
scientists are just hopping about to submit papers on every bit of
work they do. It's the methods (civilian - MONEY <g>) areas that are
so secretive and "clique-ish," which is an unfortunate precursor to
"cult-ish," a place some have already arrived. :-(
I would really like to hear from people on the Psi list about their
experiences, their way of doing things, their understanding of
reality, and all kinds of things like that. There is a whole world
of fascinating interwoven relationships that are rich ground for
I love this kind of talk. It has been really hard for me sometimes,
in one of my other email groups, to force discussion I was really
interested in out the door because it wasn't within the group's
narrowly defined focus. And then have everybody mad at me for it
on top of it. :-) This list is more of a chance for everybody to be
laid back and friendly and more personal and share what's going on
with them and how they feel about things. I think everybody can
learn from everybody else's perspective.
Thanks everyone, for joining me here.
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:03:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Hypnagogic ESP
>>I know I'm in hypnagogy when I feel wieghtless or hear something.
At that point I pose the target cue and record the impressions into
memory until I break off the meditation and document what happened.
[...] I may be wrong, but I feel that learning OBE first may be
benificial to learning other psi abilities. All the same rules that
are involved in CRV still apply in the technique I use. Such as
AOL's, telepathic overlay, etc. I've found it to be easier to pick
up on the holistic information.<<
Sounds like you're teaching yourself ERV! :-)
In clinical definitions, when one gets to where their awareness
'feels like it's somewhere else,' but is still aware enough to also
be 'here' at least a tad bit, that is called "disassociation." It
means that one is disassociated from their physical environment
and/or self. Disassociation is often referred to by psychics who
have never had a literal OBE as being an "Out of Body Experience".
Once you have a few literal OBEs, you realize the difference is
pretty vast. No big deal... call it what you want... I'm just trying
to give you some background so if you're talking to anybody
experienced in the sciences of psi, you'll know the terms.
Hypnagogic RV is what many psychics use -- and get very good results
from. You're right, this is one type of approach that was used in
the US gov't intelligence program. In later years they came
to call that ERV, but that acronym isn't very descriptive.
You might be interested to know that hypnogogy with a specific
condition -- that being the addition of white noise, lying down with
a dim red light in the room (usually using halved ping-pong balls
over the eyes) has been scientifically studied as its own form of
remote viewing, called "Ganzfeld." A person could pull that off
themselves with a tape and a darkroom light.
You're right about the "holistic" quality too. Hypnagogic-level ESP
tends to be much more conceptual, emotional, stream of consciousness,
allegorical, etc. and tends to pick up more of that nature of things.
As opposed to traditional Controlled Remote Viewing methods for
example, which force a person into a mold of physical descriptions
until fairly late in the process.
Hypnagogic psi work also tends to be vastly more "experiential" than
CRV -- in short, you "feel" it more, and it's more FUN. :-)
>>If anyone wants in depth details on my hypnagogy induction process,
Why don't you post it to the list? I'm interested, and I'm sure many
others are as well.
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:03:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Genetics
>>I would hope that most, if not all of you, know that Ingo
>>essentially invented CRV and is considered it's guru.
He is considered a guru by many. Might be more accurate to say he
"compiled" CRV though. While the combination is certainly his, and
while it works along the lines of his own theory, nearly all the
components of it both overt and contextual are from previous systems
(particularly Rene Warcollier's stuff).
In regards to psi talent running in families, I once had a whole
series of fascinating dreams about that. My grandmother (who died
when I was 9, and who I have never dreamed before that I recall) and
my mother (who also died when I was 9) both "showed up" and explained
to me in some detail about entities, aliens, consciousness, and "what
part of those genetics I got from them." I hadn't really thought
about genetics being part of it before, but now I believe they must
be. I don't remember much of the content of the dream, just what he
overall communication was about.
The fun-nest things to RV would be one's own dreams. :-)
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Joan Branch
Subject: Re: [Psi] Gone...lucky you...
>I ask the building to tell me where the
>_really_ bad areas are. Then I walk straight there. It's like taking
>candy from a baby. And I don't even feel guilty about it.
Dan, would you be able to ask a chemical - Hydrazine Sulphate - if it can
really cure cancer, or some kinds of cancer, and if so, what kinds?
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:44:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Joan Branch
Subject: Re: [Psi] Hidden and repressed psi
>I think that his disturbed mental state over the death of his mother did
>sensitise him to something, but to what I do not know. If it was a warning
>from his mother in "spirit," how did she know?
Because Time is travelable - before, after, during.
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:44:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Joan Branch
Subject: Re: [Psi] Keeping things fresh
>There are a
>lot of things I'm interested in that the charter of the VWR list
>hasn't allowed me to ask people about. Now I finally have a chance.
I am enjoying this newsgroup. Thank you, PJ, for forming it. All the
special protocol of the RV group seems to hinder any extemporaneous question
that might come to mind in another associated field. No disrespect, but
this newsgroup is more like a spirited unlimited conversation among
interested, interesting, intellectual persons. :) Thank you again.
Date sent: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:24:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Joan Branch
Subject: Re: [Psi] [PSI] Enhancement
Re: the 'warning' received by one member's BIL. According to my anonymous
friend who knows much more about these things than I...
QUOTE: >Re: the 'warning'.
> there is really no point in giving credit or blaming his mother. the guy just
>had a spontaneous psi thing happen. That's what it is called. Happens to
>thousands of people and has nothing to do with any dead relatives...
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:42:00 +0000
Subject: [Psi] Boring ListBizness
This is a copy of an email response I sent to someone this morning.
I am copying it here only because I obviously communicated badly in
the first place, and so hopefully this will clear my intention up!
-- PJ the Prolific
Thanks for your input. I run a number of email lists, and there are
varying factors in volume that matter more to me than others.
I hope others were NOT offended by my comments asking for
post-consolidation. I am thrilled they are participating, especially
Joan and Mary and Dan, as they have lots of interesting ideas and
experiences, but were really restricted by the environment of another
list they were in.
First, volume in length doesn't matter to me. As far as archives go,
if the length is informative, great!
If it did, I would certainly not write lengthy posts and then
complain about people doing so. ;-)
Volume in quantity of posts does, and the only reason that does in
this case is because there is currently no digest version of the psi
list. My other main list has a digest, where numerous posts
are consolidated into one really long post, so that the number of
separate emails are minimized.
I've had a lot of private email response already about the number of
posts, from people asking if I could consolidate them into digest
form. They weren't complaining about the overall quantity of
info, just about the inconvenience of getting a bazillion pieces in
their email constantly all day. It's easy to delete three emails.
It's a pain in the neck to delete 40, mixed in with your other stuff.
It also means if I want to archive this, which I'd like to, it'll take
a year if it's all in separate posts. That really increases my time
demands, without a digest. So it helps me to consolidate things. I
don't make money off this stuff, but I like archiving it because I get
great public response saying that kind of thing helps them. I want to
make it possible for myself to do that.
I didn't ask people to write less. If you measure bytes instead of
quantity of posts, I'd be the worst by far! I asked them to
consolidate the one-liners, for instance, into ONE email rather than
seven. This is mostly to make it easier on me, and on others until I
get a digest version of the list up and running.
I clearly.... was not clear. I'm sorry. Maybe I should post this
response (without your name of course, since you sent it privately) to
the list so it's.... cleared up.
>Can I suggest a little more terseness. A little more
Terse and to the point. Hmmmn. I'm usually the most terse and to the
point person I know. But if you mean, skip the stories or recounts of
personal experience or theories and stick to facts or science -- I'm
My god, they'll lambast me! The whole point of starting this list was
to get AWAY from the terse to the point science intell stuff and get
INTO the more casual, friendly, freeflowing discussion of psi
experiences and usage in general. If I force THIS list into a
"structured, focused discussion" too, I'm going to get email bombs
from half the members. :-)
They're probably already wondering if my somber responses to some
things mean this list is as cerebral as the other. It's just based on
who I'm responding to. There's lots of stuff I'd like to talk about on
the list, some pretty offbeat, and certainly not with the dull
scientific lecture-tone my responses in that area have. It'll depend
on others being willing to bring it up and carry on with it, though.
Just so you know the background, the whole reason the [Psi] list was
formed was as an offshoot of my [VWR] list. Where things are quite a
bit more terse, extremely focused and to-the-point, and where a
minimal number of topics are going on at any one time.
Many members complained (ad nauseum) about how they just wanted a
friendly place where they could talk about "psychic stuff" and they
didn't like the environment where things were so.... moderated,
restricted, and focused, they wanted to talk about 'whatever they felt
like' at the moment, even if it wasn't really within the narrow focus
of the list, even if it wasn't scientifically validated or in line
with what "official" psi studies or work had done.
I refused, for the sake of clarity there, and my response was to
eventually form the [Psi] list. Which is open to everybody and,
unlike VWR, is unmoderated.
SO: I *want* information volume, and topic volume, and topic
diversity, and perspective diversity, on this list.
I would just rather have that volume in the smallest number of
separate posts as possible. Once I get a digest version of this list
up, I won't care anymore, I'll just use that for archiving.
If my request for consolidating posts seemed to contradict the
above goals, I'm sorry, my fault for not being more clear.
>and one thread at a time so we can give more attention to one
>subject instead of just generalising?
I don't think you need to generalize just because there may be more
than one topic. (And the topic may be someone else's, not yours, if
we chose only one, consider.) I can't limit response to just one
person or one topic and ignore other topics members bring up, that
wouldn't be very fair to the people ignored. And to do so would
require moderating the list anyway, so it was consistent, and that's
not the kind of list I want.
Respond in detail to one, or to all, as you wish. Maybe store emails
you'd like to respond to but don't want to deal with until you have
time or list volume is dead or is boring you. It'll happen!
>Or worse still, overloading the list in our attempts to respond to
I'm sorry. And I really do sympathize with your position. You don't
HAVE to respond to everything. And I cannot limit the flow of
information on an email list based on any given individual who doesn't
want to deal with it. Either ignore all but a few, or deal with the
volume, or consider finding a list that is slower. That's the only
advice I can give. I can tell you that volume always varies and it
might go down, if that helps.
I am trying to validate and respond to each contributor and their
points and that is part of why I've responded so much. That is part
of starting a new mail list. If you read the archives of my VWR list
you'd see the same thing when it began. You'd also see that I
disappeared from it for nearly a month at a time off and on.
I take member complaints about lists seriously. But in the long run,
as list owner, I have to look at it objectively: If I now have about
50 people on the list, that means 50 people are okay with it, or at
least okay enough to stay subscribed. Some of the largest lists I
know of generate 150+ messages a day. It's mind numbing. But
they've got 2500 subscribers who are obviously okay with that. God
forbid! -- I'll get a digest version lonnnnnnng before it gets to
Bear in mind this list is brand new. It's about five days old,
that's all. My goal here is (a) to support the fledgling list, (b) to
help "imprint a tone" on it to start (I want to avoid the fluffy new
age brainlessness so many psi lists have), and (c) to use the first
month of it to create an archive on my web site, so that people can
see the kind of topics discussed, the way they're discussed, and
maybe decide to join. I am putting in some real time so that I can
accomplish these goals.
I really do NOT have time to be writing like I am and my work is
paying the price, so you can be sure that after the first month, the
list is on its own -- unless I get wildly inspired over something I
probably won't participate much except in cycles. So you'll be rid
of me then. ;-)
[Psi] List Owner
(Archivist note: below post is from the same author.)
Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:37:40 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] Developing Psi
At 11:46 AM 1/17/98 +0000, you wrote:
<ahem> I mean.. hello :)
You do give us an awful lot to go at PJ - has your keyboard got
diaho... diarh... the shits?. Hope you won't mind if I trim your post
a little so I can concentrate on one thing at a time
When I asked:
>>>I wonder to what degree psi is inhibited (or induced) after say,
>>>running a mile or eating a Big Mac or taking a bath etc.?
>Supposedly people score well shortly after some good exercise;
>enough to get them all wound up but not enough to exhaust them. But
>people are at a sort of peak then in every category, so that
>shouldn't be a surprise. I don't know about the others.
When I asked that question I was trying to get at, or at any rate talk about,
the supposed mechanism of psi and how it behaves. One thing I have
learned from Radin's book is that far more experimentation has been
done than I had realised. I wonder if anything has been done to discover
if there is any daily or other periodic fluctuation. Is there any fluctuation
after certain kinds of activity or after ingesting certain foods? Joan
insists that psi is affected by drugs but I'm not so certain that that has
been proven by research.
>>>I'm reading his book "The Conscious Universe" right now. Excellent
>>>bedtime stuff - to my wife's annoyance :)
>I'm about 4/5 of the way through it too.
That's great. Then take a look on page 115 (Perception through time)
which deals with temporal anomalies: He describes how Honorton and
Ferrari questioned whether the quality of studies improve with time,
"... even though study quality improved over time, the size of the
precognitive effect did not. This indicates that the effects experimenters
had been seeing repeatedly for more than half a century were
So, getting back to the question of whether psi generally can be
developed, it would seem not. It would seem, in fact, that any
improved results observed from, e.g. RV sessions are merely due
to procedural refinements and aclimatisation to protocol discipline.
Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:37:37 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] Hey has anyone tried......
At 01:26 PM 1/17/98 -0800, you wrote:
>WHAT DOES effect psi are drugs like tranquilizers and antidepressants.
Would you like to expand on that Joan? I'm sure if that were true I (we)
would all have heard about it.
I believe in cause and effect and that the former always precedes the
latter despite the apparent contradiction of precognition so, it follows
that whenever an event as unusual as psi occurs it must have been
caused. That is to say, events proceed in a normal fashion until some
condition occurs that "causes" an abnormal (psychic) event. Sure it
could be that certain drugs will provide the "trigger" but I don't know
of any that will do it consistently.
Anyway, my point was that "events" happen (if the anecdotal evidence
is to be believed) anytime, anyplace and without help from drugs, and
I want to know what is the trigger.
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 07:59:01 +0000
Subject: Re: [Psi] Misc. Collected Posts
>>You do give us an awful lot to go at PJ - has your keyboard got
>>diaho... diarh... the shits?. Hope you won't mind if I trim your
>>post a little so I can concentrate on one thing at a time
How diplomatic of you Brian.
I am responding to ALL your posts from this morning in ONE email
here, which will most certainly lengthen THIS one. ;-)
>From the post "Developing Psi"
>>One thing I have learned from Radin's book is that far more
>>experimentation has been done than I had realised.
Yes. And there are plenty of things that cannot get in a book like
that; his point was to demonstrate psi's existence; there are however
many things learned ABOUT psi, conditions of it, functions of it,
etc. over the last 25 years. A whole wealth of information that
psychics would really benefit from.
I am working on getting in better touch with that aspect of the
subject, in the hopes I can gradually help get the bits of info to
the public. I'm working on a web site for the Parapsychology
Association, and I hope after some time, we can make it a really
great online repository for scientific work done in this field.
Since most psi scientists in this country belong to the group, and
many in other countries, science papers published by members take
up a fair amount of the bulk of relevant work in the field.
>I wonder if anything has been done to discover if there is any daily
>or other periodic fluctuation.
As I referenced in another post in regards to James Spottiswoode's
work, yes. There is a distinct correlation with Local Sidereal Time.
Thousands of trials testing all kinds of psi, lots of different labs
and researchers, all over the world, for the last 30 years, were
correlated, and the meta-analysis demonstrates that at 13.47 Local
Sidereal Time the average results were over 400% higher in effect
size than the norm. At about 18.00 LST the results dropped below the
norm to pretty much zero (which is possibly not zero psi, but it's
hard to say; science doesn't measure psi, science measures "correct
choices which in quantity deviate from chance"). A second set
of trials (worldwide / over time) were tested to confirm this,
and died. The scientists still don't know WHY this is, although
there are theories. They don't know why the theories should
work either, but there you go. Those are the facts.
There are other factors. You'll have to read the literature.
James's web site is temporarily offline. I should have his new one
up in about a week, then I can send you the URL to a couple of
articles related to periodic/measurable fluctuations in psi effect.
(Archivist note: http://www.jsasoc.com/ )
>>Is there any fluctuation after certain kinds of activity or after
>>ingesting certain foods? Joan insists that psi is affected by
>>drugs but I'm not so certain that that has been proven by research.
What has been proven by research is that anything which impairs the
normal functioning of the person will impair psi demonstration. This
would include tranquilizers. It also includes basic conditions. If
psi subject are hungry, horny, angry, depressed, etc. they will not
do as well in psi demonstration as when they're not. The one
exception I know of to this is that performance anxiety works both
ways depending apparently on cause. The ego issues can kill a psi
demonstration dead, if we're talking about insecurity alone, however,
simple PRESSURE issues -- such as, you need to do well on this
because your data is going to help find a child murderer before he
strikes again, or you need to do well because a congressional
committee is staring at you and the funding for the whole program
rests on your ability to "prove" psi right NOW -- those tend to
improve the results. Psi is highly correlated to psychology, not
surprisingly, so miserable conditions in a lab -- which is usually
the case when any skeptic (rarely) ventures into an experiment, and
considers their own subjects either stupid, insane, or liars -- this
tends to (not surprisingly) see worse results.
>Then take a look on page 115 (Perception through time) which deals
>with temporal anomalies: He describes how Honorton and Ferrari
>questioned whether the quality of studies improve with time, "...
>even though study quality improved over time, the size of the
>precognitive effect did not. This indicates that the effects
>experimenters had been seeing repeatedly for more than half a
>century were remarkably stable.".
>So, getting back to the question of whether psi generally can be
>developed, it would seem not. It would seem, in fact, that any
>improved results observed from, e.g. RV sessions are merely due
>to procedural refinements and aclimatisation to protocol discipline.
Brian, you read the above, you even repeated the above, and you
completely construed the OPPOSITE of Dean's entire point.
First, the studies Radin analyzed were not studies which were
designed to try and improve psi. They were studies designed to try
and demonstrate psi existed in the first place. Only recently did
parapsychology scientists give up on wasting their time re-proving
the same things over and over, and begin to delve into the
conditional elements of psi rather than the mere existence of it.
So, you cannot say the improvement issue has been disproved by this
meta-analytic study; those trials included were not designed to
measure improvement based on intent to improve, which they would
need to be for making that conclusion. The analysis was only to
test whether or not the quality of experiments affected the
demonstration of psi.
Which is the second and far more relevant point. Dean discusses
throughout the entire book the stance of skeptics, the response of
parapsychology, and the comparison of skeptics theories vs. psi
demonstration. In this case, skeptics have repeatedly claimed for a
century that if psi seemed to be demonstrated, it was only because
there was some experimental flaw that allowed everyone to be fooled
by some other effect (from outright fraud to mnemonic information,
etc. ad nauseum). If they are correct, improving the experimental
quality ought to see a correlating decrease in effect size.
Dean's POINT is that parapsychology researchers have taken the advice
of skeptics, they have brought skeptics in on the experiments
themselves to ensure controls were tight, the trials have gotten
better and better in tightly controlled quality design -- and yet the
results have NOT gotten worse. If the skeptics were right, and
only some kind of "sloppy process" allowed an effect to be
demonstrated, then improving that process should have demonstrated a
decline in effect. As in, it got harder to do, harder to fool the
scientists, harder to get information through other means, so if psi
didn't exist, result should go down. It did not. What it basically
demonstrated is that all the skeptical arguments against various
elements in psi experimentation are now proven to have not had any
real effect on the experimental results. None that could be used to
cancel the effect size. It also demonstrated as a side note that psi
taken as a larger mean (overall effect size, as opposed to how an
individual does any given day) is not as sporadic as once thought,
that in fact, this is a pretty stable measurement. Again, if
problems in experimental design were the cause of the effect sizes
shown, there should be a more erratic (less stable) display as well.
>From the post "Hey, has anyone tried..."
>WHAT DOES effect psi are drugs like tranquilizers and
>Would you like to expand on that Joan? I'm sure if that were true I
>(we) would all have heard about it.
That's pretty funny! Most people haven't even heard of the most
obvious basics of psi research let alone all the details we have
learned over the past century. I don't have a reference off the top
of my head, and I don't know if this has been studied in depth, but
I'm willing to bet that those drugs DO affect psi demonstration
>>I believe in cause and effect and that the former always precedes
>>the latter despite the apparent contradiction of precognition so, it
>>follows that whenever an event as unusual as psi occurs it must have
>>been caused. That is to say, events proceed in a normal fashion
>>until some condition occurs that "causes" an abnormal (psychic)
What an interesting theory. I'm afraid I haven't held that one for a
number of years so I have a difficult time totally relating to it. In
my understanding of reality (only), all things interact with each
other, and to some degree it's kind of as if the elements of past and
future determine the variable of the present. I can change any two of
them and change the third. But that's a little complex for this
discussion and I certainly have no 'scientific' proof of that.
I think semantics are making me feel a little muddy here though. Psi
isn't an event. It's a sense or talent or ability. There may be an
event which may be perceived through a sense like psi, but that's not
quite the same thing as saying an event "is" psi. I would say an
event is an event regardless, no different than seeing a bus go by,
and psi is merely the sense one uses to discern it, like one's eyes.
I don't view psi as something that "only happens once in a great while
to select people." As if "psi" itself is an anomaly. I see the
events as happening anyway, and it's just that a great deal of the
population are oblivious to them.
(Those that catch them on the periphery but are still in conscious
denial of the sense usually hang around the internet being skeptical.
Kind of like how obviously- unresolved atheists sometimes hang around
christians just to argue about it. If they really didn't believe it,
they'd do something else; if they really wanted to know, they would
dive into it themselves; "association without participation" fulfills
both aspects of their contradictory-needs without threatening
>>Sure it could be that certain drugs will provide the "trigger" but I
>>don't know of any that will do it consistently.
If we knew of one, government would have the monopoly on it, I'm sure.
;-) There are some drugs which certainly can expand perception in
ways most would call psi (e.g. LSD, meth derivations, et al.); there
are even known drugs which can bring on, for example, meetings with
the same type of entities for nearly everybody who ingests them. Ref:
the McKenna brothers' work. But since science at this point doesn't
consider talking to other entities a form of psi, and since most good
drugs are illegal, I doubt there's much evidence on that besides the
subjective and empirical.
>>Anyway, my point was that "events" happen (if the anecdotal
>>evidence is to be believed) anytime, anyplace and without help from
>>drugs, and I want to know what is the trigger.
Maybe the events are not triggered. Maybe our PERCEPTION of the
events is triggered. Psi being a sense.... not an event. In which
case, areas to look for clues may be the belief systems of the
individual, and how the event they suddenly perceived via psi related
to them or their beliefs. Just a thought.
>From the post "Hidden and Repressed Psi"
>>Alan raises a very interesting question here. One which I think is
>>worthy of some deeper discussion. For starters, I'm not convinced by
>Because Time is travelable - before, after, during.
I actually agree with Joan, but I don't know that's the answer to the
question, only because I'm not sure it's the aspect of the situation
Alan was asking about.
Asking how someone's dead mother can communicate with them may get
into time issues (who knows), but before it goes anywhere near that,
it gets into dead-mother issues. :-) As in, do dead-mothers exist,
and if they do, how do they communicate, and so on.
>Joan cannot know this - unless she is different to us mere mortals.
>Even Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time" didn't
>speculate on the nature of time with that kind of certainty.
Well Stephen Hawking isn't a psychic, he's a physicist. I am
fascinated with physics, but if I wanted to discuss psi ability in
such a way that it contradicted physics (which I don't think it does
-- but then physics is still a developing knowledge) I would not do so
on a physics list. By the same token, I wouldn't discuss physics in
such a way that it contradicted psi on a psi list. There are plenty
of physicists whose theories and work in general in fact support the
idea of psi. Bohm and Josephson (Nobel winner) just to start. But
most people on this list can't argue with you on academic points or
people. We just gathered to talk about psi experiences.... not to
prove them to others. That's a dead horse in my reality (so to speak)
and I'm not going to beat on it anymore for anybody.
>Unfortunately this still doesn't answer Alan's question: How does the
>information get passed? Ho-hum!
I don't know either. Spiritualists seem to focus a lot of attention
on the dead and things of that nature.
Even in a life of 'metaphysical' experiences I have never seen a
ghost, or talked to a ghost, unless dreams count, which in this
discussion they probably don't.....
Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:43:59 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] [PSI] Enhancement
At 08:24 PM 1/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> there is really no point in giving credit or blaming his mother. the guy just
>>had a spontaneous psi thing happen. That's what it is called. Happens to
>>thousands of people and has nothing to do with any dead relatives...
Sounds like a reasonable statement. What's your point Joan?