From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Constructing our own realities Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 19:06:32 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 77 Message-ID: <3846b70a.1420250@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <01bf378c$223f8300$11161d86@moi-comp> <3844B36C.5DDDCA0C@best.com> <38451552.2712416@news.dial.pipex.com> <384563d8_2@news.calweb.com> <38457a44.4704930@news.dial.pipex.com> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userl599.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944159011 28329 193.149.75.158 (2 Dec 1999 18:23:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 1999 18:23:31 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!diablo2!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!grot.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:30:55 -0600, "B.D. Yager" wrote: >Hello Julia. You bring such refreshing insights to the group! Thank-you >for being perceptive, eloquent, and inspiring! .... Coo, thanks! A bouquet of freesias, paper-white narcissus and asparagus fern! Exactly what I most need in early December; the sweet scent of spring! >However, while I don't totally disagree with your theories on the constructs >of reality, I do look at them in a completely different light. I shall give >you some food for your sleepless nights... >We do not "construct" this reality, per say. To say so, is to vastly >underestimate the depth of the "creator". We experience the choice of our >realities...but do not create them. Time is an illusion, a falsehood >constructed merely for the benefit of the human "ego". All time, and all >possibilities of each and every action by each and every soul, and its' >effects on each and every other soul,... all exist; have all began and ended >in the blink of an eye; outside of time in the timeless eternity of Alpha >and Omega. A mere "blip" on the screen of creation. Possibly...ah, but.... I am a writer, as are you, and writers are the professional creators of alternate realities. Tolkien's Middle Earth is as familiar to many people as our own. So is the Star Trek universe, Dungeons & Dragons, Discworld, Dickens' London, Animal Farm, Cold Comfort Farm or even Springfield where the Simpsons live. Terry Pratchett told me that a guy called Stephen Briggs wrote to him, saying that he had been filing and collating every street name and direction referred to in his Ankh-Morpork books, and he had drawn a map of the city (now published) which Pratchett now has to refer to to work out how long it took Vimes to reach the Opera House from the Shades. He has now done the same for the entire disk, and Pratchett has to refer to that for future books... I once met a man who had refused to speak anything but Klingon for the last month. I don't know exactly what he said to me, but my, it was rude! So realities for other people can be created by a single individual, although all writers are also aware of the actual risk of simultaneous creation of their 'own' ideas by another writer. Pratchett calls it Morphic Resonance. All writers also have control over time and space. Time is very fluid stuff, entirely created by the people using it. Agreed. But, now here is the query: When I 'fly' in meditation to visit a friend on another continent I arrive there at exactly the moment we had preagreed, allowing for International time differences. I later write the email describing to her exactly the image (eg brie on a plate) in her head at that moment. I email this description to her, and she reads it an hour later and is astonished at how exact the 'reading' is. But I have not created or constructed that reality. I have only tapped into her reality. So I have used telepathy to do so, and the fashion these days seems to be "Oh, its only telepathy, we know that works." But I could not have spoken to her in the same instant without my thoughts and hers connecting instantaneously. ("Only Connect" E M Forster) Are she and I creating a shared reality or, if as you say, "Time is an illusion, a falsehood constructed merely for the benefit of the human "ego", " then it must be a mutual human consciousness I am tapping into. If each of us can do that, and we writers know how dramatically we can alter perceived human reality with our words, we can agree that nothing, however outrageous, surprises us at all... (except Hiroshima or Belsen or Bosnia)... Then why do the things we encounter going obe or astrally travelling surprise us so much? Who is creating them? >I shall not, here, go into any depth on this. A book is in the works. All >I will say here, for now,... is that I entirely enjoy your posts, Julia, and >would be more than happy to discuss certain aspects of "theoretical" >constructs of reality with you,... off-post. So, if you'd like to have a >"bouncing-board", then let's delve into our "theories"! E-mail... Thank you for your invitation. I would, however, prefer to keep the discussion public. Other people here have extraordinarily valuable input into the discussion. If some people object to what we are talking about, I am sure they can either ignore us or flame us! Anyway, if they feel they have given some input to a published book, they are more likely to buy it when it finally appears! Love from Julia. Love from Julia. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Constructing our own realities Date: 04 Dec 1999 18:45:00 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 91 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uyabafvmr.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <01bf378c$223f8300$11161d86@moi-comp> <3844B36C.5DDDCA0C@best.com> <38451552.2712416@news.dial.pipex.com> <384563d8_2@news.calweb.com> <38457a44.4704930@news.dial.pipex.com> <3846b70a.1420250@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:30:55 -0600, "B.D. Yager" > wrote: > >We do not "construct" this reality, per say. To say so, is to vastly > >underestimate the depth of the "creator". We experience the choice of our > >realities...but do not create them. Assuming there is a separate creator:-). Some here believe that the original creator (or rather creative force split into parts, that live on as the souls of us, so all of us together simply is identical with "the creator". > Time is an illusion, a falsehood > >constructed merely for the benefit of the human "ego". But it is an interesting way to experience the creation, to wander through it, looking at differetn parts in sequence. > Terry Pratchett told me that a guy called Stephen Briggs wrote to > him, saying that he had been filing and collating every street name > and direction referred to in his Ankh-Morpork books, Tolkien had that one easier: his own son Christopher did it for him. > refused to speak anything but Klingon for the last month. I don't know > exactly what he said to me, but my, it was rude! What else would you expect from a Klingon? > constructed that reality. I have only tapped into her reality. So I > have used telepathy to do so, and the fashion these days seems to be > "Oh, its only telepathy, we know that works." Whioch is how all shared realities (including the "official" reality are created. COmmunication among the creators, about the creation, not via it. > Are she and I creating a shared reality Most likely not a shared creation, in this case, because you are only observing in it and not adding elements to it. > tapping into. If each of us can do that, and we writers know how > dramatically we can alter perceived human reality with our words, As any propagandist does professionally. > can agree that nothing, however outrageous, surprises us at all... > (except Hiroshima or Belsen or Bosnia)... Why does that surprise you? The elements of reckless greed for power (in politicians) and of absolute follow the revered leader (in soldiers) have been repeated often enough, that they should not surprice people any more. Exeption is only possible in people who have not heard of th many pre-existing examples of such behaviour. OK, historic knowledge seems to be fairly non-existant for many people. > Then why do the things we encounter going obe or astrally > travelling surprise us so much? Who is creating them? They are new (in the sense of no previous entries in momory) to the person experiencing them. > >I will say here, for now,... is that I entirely enjoy your posts, Julia, So do I. > >would be more than happy to discuss certain aspects of "theoretical" > >constructs of reality with you,... off-post. So, if you'd like to have a > >"bouncing-board", then let's delve into our "theories"! E-mail... Why off-post? That will loose them for all of us, and loose our additions for you. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Constructing our own realities Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 00:37:42 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 53 Message-ID: <384b0303.10548511@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <01bf378c$223f8300$11161d86@moi-comp> <3844B36C.5DDDCA0C@best.com> <38451552.2712416@news.dial.pipex.com> <384563d8_2@news.calweb.com> <38457a44.4704930@news.dial.pipex.com> <3846b70a.1420250@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uyabafvmr.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userah33.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944438103 29678 62.188.132.218 (5 Dec 1999 23:55:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Dec 1999 23:55:03 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 04 Dec 1999 18:45:00 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: JHM>> he refused to speak anything but Klingon for the last month. I don't know >> exactly what he said to me, but my, it was rude! >What else would you expect from a Klingon? Opera? >> Are she and I creating a shared reality? > >Most likely not a shared creation, in this case, because you are only >observing in it and not adding elements to it. Good point. Me reading her book... >> can agree that nothing, however outrageous, surprises us at all... >> (except Hiroshima or Belsen or Bosnia)... > >Why does that surprise you? The elements of reckless greed for power >(in politicians) and of absolute follow the revered leader (in >soldiers) have been repeated often enough, that they should not >surprice people any more. True. I was actually referring back to a run of posts a few days ago when I suggested that those three events have been so shocking as to alter the fabric of perceived human reality, rather than 'Oh, no, not yet another politicised massacre." >Exeption is only possible in people who have not heard of th many >pre-existing examples of such behaviour. OK, historic knowledge seems >to be fairly non-existant for many people. Sadly true. History is the only way to study the future. >> Then why do the things we encounter going obe or astrally >> travelling surprise us so much? Who is creating them? > >They are new (in the sense of no previous entries in momory) to the >person experiencing them. Another good point. So are they memories from other people's realities, like the deep-fried brie? And why is telepathy so often dismissed as 'been there, done that' anyway? I read others minds (and they mine) on a daily basis, and entertainingly for parties. If it's such an everyday ocurence, wheat research is going on into it? If we can read minds, surely this is part of the same process as RV or OBE. If it's so common, why is it not being studied, refined and taught? Or is it? Love from Julia. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Constructing our own realities Date: 08 Dec 1999 18:51:27 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 82 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uogc1gw2o.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <01bf378c$223f8300$11161d86@moi-comp> <3844B36C.5DDDCA0C@best.com> <38451552.2712416@news.dial.pipex.com> <384563d8_2@news.calweb.com> <38457a44.4704930@news.dial.pipex.com> <3846b70a.1420250@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uyabafvmr.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <384b0303.10548511@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > On 04 Dec 1999 18:45:00 +0100, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >> can agree that nothing, however outrageous, surprises us at all... > >> (except Hiroshima or Belsen or Bosnia)... > > > >Why does that surprise you? The elements of reckless greed for power > > when I suggested that those three events have been so shocking as to > alter the fabric of perceived human reality, rather than 'Oh, no, not Only to peole who did not have detailed knowledge of, say, the massacre of the Armenians (ca 1910), Napoleon (around 1800), the Mongol attacks (15th century). All made more than 1mio killed, including many civilians, using no more than sharpend metal wielded by hand (i.e. massacres). To anyone knowing these, the only thing shocking in WW2 was that such stuff can _still_ happen. So that would only be breaking the delusion, that civilisation makes barbarism impossible (rather than viewing civ as mostly absence of barbarism). OTOH, breaking beliefs (be they in principial human goodness or in the goodness of progress) is what shocks are about. So perhaps WW2 was just as big a shock, that changed percieved reality. > >Exeption is only possible in people who have not heard of th many > >pre-existing examples of such behaviour. OK, historic knowledge seems > >to be fairly non-existant for many people. > > Sadly true. History is the only way to study the future. Or more precisely, to study mechanisms which will most likely be reused in the events shaping the future. The actual future of course remains open until made, and so inpredictable. > >> Then why do the things we encounter going obe or astrally > >> travelling surprise us so much? Who is creating them? > > > >They are new (in the sense of no previous entries in momory) to the > >person experiencing them. > > Another good point. So are they memories from other people's > realities, like the deep-fried brie? Most likely. After all, any social interaction (with embodied and disembodied beings) is about getting into contact with stuff known to the other and not to oneself. > And why is telepathy so often dismissed as 'been there, done that' > anyway? I read others minds (and they mine) on a daily basis, and > entertainingly for parties. Perhaps because it does not demand giving up strongly held beliefs in the physical-only world (just explain it as bio-radio). > If it's such an everyday ocurence, wheat > research is going on into it? If we can read minds, surely this is > part of the same process as RV or OBE. If it's so common, why is it > not being studied, refined and taught? Or is it? a) TP has been studied enough to pin its existance down, but there is no set of conpeting hypothesis that would make further research to nail it to one of them interesting. b) TP is regarded as not important (same as RV or OBE). It becomes only important if one regards it as clues towards an different narure of the world, and then c) strikes. c) the "giggle factor", the chance to mess ones career up by leaning too far out of the window (after discovering something spectacular). Other research is more rewarding and less dangerous. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/