twin psychics

[findingblanks]

I have two long-time good friends who are psychic. And they are twins. And they are 100% materialists.

There is a decent chance that some of you may know who I am talking about. They keep a low profile but for about ten years the word has started
to get out about their accuracy and they work (for free) with the public in certain cases. In fact, their local (big city) police often use them for hard cases and a few other districts use them from time to time.

Recently, somebody with what seems a good amount of integrity wanted to do a documentary on them. They only began to consent to it after many meetings and questions about how the documentary would be presented and what would be the point. They even insisted that they would be blurred out and their voices modified. It seemed like it was going to happen and it would have also meant some much needed revenue. As I said they do not take money for their psychic services.

When the producers approach the police department for some interviews, the police declined and then told my friends that if the documentary was made they would have to stop utilizing their services. My friends had a long month but decided to drop the documentary and continue helping the police. They did not find this an easy or an obvious decision and might change their minds in the future.

As I said, they are dyed-in-the-wool materialists. They don't claim to understand exactly what makes their capacities possible, but they have theoretical frameworks in which they can see possible material mechanisms taking place.

What I love about it is that their 'guides' don't care a bit what the twins believe. The 'guides' simply express gratitude that the twins are open-minded and not scared of their capacities. In fact, while the guides seem to have a light-hearted and ironic attitude towards the twin's materialistic theories, they seem genuinely disturbed by the average clairvoyants 'explanation' of what is happening during psychic events.

Recently one of the guides said, "Actually we are much more like magnetic fields than individuated spirits, but communication is easier when clothed via agency." That squares with much of what Steiner told the French physicists.

Anyway, we live in a very amazing universe. I have no doubt that if we don't destroy ourselves too early, we will be finding more clairvoyants like the twins along with the more typical batch. And lots of others in between.

[ParadoxZone]

Hi FB,

Fascinating and funny too.

Does this use of information from guides conflict at all with the injunction from Spiritual Science not to use information from the guides for personal gain?

They don't take money and they're obviously wary of notoriety too. What rules do they use to decide who to cooperate with? Are there other no-go areas for them?

[AshvinP]

Hi FB,

Fascinating and funny too.

Does this use of information from guides conflict at all with the injunction from Spiritual Science not to use information from the guides for personal gain?

They don't take money and they're obviously wary of notoriety too. What rules do they use to decide who to cooperate with? Are there other no-go areas for them?

Oh brother... I can already sense the major misinformatonal 'damage control' which will need to be done due to FB's recent posts such as this one...

For now, PZ, I am sure you are familiar enough with SS to know that what FB claimed about spirit guides being more like "magnetic fields" than "individuated spirits", trying to imply that is what Steiner asserted too, has nothing to do with SS whatsoever. I think your natural reaction was a healthy skepticism of such things which fly in the face of logic and reason, so that's good! That's all I wanted to say for now.

[Brad Walker]

Spiritual gifts can readily be used for personal gain without repercussion, and the easiest path to acquisition is wealth.

[Ben Iscatus]

Spiritual gifts can readily be used for personal gain without repercussion, and the easiest path to acquisition is wealth.

I'm guessing you mean 'psychic' gifts? The term 'Spiritual' usually brings the baggage of moral repercussions for the soul (consider Faust and the way Satan tempted Christ etc).

[findingblanks]

Hey Paradox, great questions. I don't know a great deal about their 'rules' or the ideas behind them, but I can ask.

My GUESS is that their main criterion is simply accuracy. A few years ago at Thanksgiving, one of them said something like, "It's like if somebody gives you a microscope and you notice that the lens is giving you accurate information." I think they probably boil it down to if the information they are able to obtain helps the people in need. And since their capacity doesn't rely on them taking on any kind of certainty about how exactly it takes place, they are happy to live in the mystery of that. But they do think it probably can be explained by a very expanded understanding of the material universe and they see hints and guess of this in some interpretations of QM.

And they delight when I come over to 'discuss' why idealism would be much simpler starting point

[findingblanks]

"Spiritual gifts can readily be used for personal gain without repercussion, and the easiest path to acquisition is wealth."

Well put, Brad.

[findingblanks]

Yes, indeed. Because there was that study group that looked closely at the two separate lectures cycles that Steiner gave on Angels, each within I think ten days of each other, one to a group primarily of clergy and the other to a group primary of physicist.

Fascinating! Because of course Steiner was talking about the same topic (experiencing and understanding angels) but making it clear that different people will have very very different experiences of them and ways of recognizing an event even as 'angelic.'

Steiner would thrill in the 12 or more core interpretations of QM these days, not, obviously, because he thought they were the truth. But he'd see exactly how they uniquely offered new ways to see events from legit perspectives. At his best, he was just nearly too wonderful.

[AshvinP]

Yes, indeed. Because there was that study group that looked closely at the two separate lectures cycles that Steiner gave on Angels, each within I think ten days of each other, one to a group primarily of clergy and the other to a group primary of physicist.

Fascinating! Because of course Steiner was talking about the same topic (experiencing and understanding angels) but making it clear that different people will have very very different experiences of them and ways of recognizing an event even as 'angelic.'

Steiner would thrill in the 12 or more core interpretations of QM these days, not, obviously, because he thought they were the truth. But he'd see exactly how they uniquely offered new ways to see events from legit perspectives. At his best, he was just nearly too wonderful.

Why don't you provide us links or files to the two separate lectures cycles so we can see exactly what Steiner said and the context in which he said it in both of them? For now, I am assuming he spoke differently to different groups about this topic based on their own framework of understanding, just as any good writer or lecturer would do, which is evident from most of his lectures, and is also what Cleric and myself do here to a certain extent. That, of course, does not mean the actual spiritual realities of angelic beings and their specific details are different for different people.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Why don't you provide us links or files to the two separate lectures cycles so we can see exactly what Steiner said and the context in which he said it in both of them?

Good point ... Being curious as to Steiner's take on the ontic essence of these 'guides' (which I'm assuming are akin to so-called 'guardian spirits') that profess to be more like magnetic fields—which may simply imply that they are non-locally transcorporeal in nature, rather than individuated loci of Mind within a locus of form, regardless of any phenomenal attributes that are projected upon them, e.g. wings and halos—I checked out an excerpt from a Steiner Q&A (below), but it doesn't really address what that ontic essence is. Can anyone point to where Steiner specifically addresses this in his body of work? And what did he tell the French physicists?