twin psychics

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

Are you not in this case referring to something (who knows what?) that Steiner told the French physicists—apparently based on some recollection from your school days—as being supportive of a specific take on the ontic nature of such 'guides'?

[maybe_my_monkey]

With the permission of the interlocuter:

TJ: Why would Soul think you have the links but would choose not to share them?

FB: I can only guess.

TJ: Well?

FB: He either doubts that such lecture cycles exist, that I actually was a part of a study group that read and studied them or that I would genunitely like for him to be able to look at them.

TJ: But why? What have you done in the past that would make him think that?

FB: I would boil it down to a clash in our style, tastes, and specific interests regarding these subjects. He might boil it down, if he wasn't working to be to polite, as seeing me as a vague troll.

TJ: Are you a troll?

FB: Not by my understanding of the term. I am just not able or willing (in this context) to ignore that my shadow is playing various roles in these discussions as much as anybody else's. And I think there i no need to shy away from that.

TJ: I think I might find you annoying if you are always poking at people's shadows.

FB: Oh, but that's the fun part. Go back even to the long endless conversation from months ago about Steiner. Notice my very first comments. And then track when I shift from simply making statements to commenting on shadow. You'll see that something happens very specifically before I ever mention such things. You'll also notice that this pattern goes unnamed. More than that. The tender souls who start the shadow dancing are convinced that they are merely being objective and honest in their appraisals of other people's inner lives.

TJ: I'll check it out.

............ten minutes later...............

TJ: You know that even sharing our chat will be used as an example of you being a troll.

FB: Are you certain of that?

TJ: Most likely, yeah.

FB: Yes, probably. But I don't ever assume that people will just do the same kind of response. I like these guys and gals and they are obviously well intentioned and good and, I think, fun people. So I go for it.

TJ: But if you just refrained from sending our chat, isn't there more a chance that they won't get upset and annoyed?

FB: Maybe. But all of these people were involved in the endless conversation that began with me simply saying things that were certainly not 100 percent correct. I mean 'simply' in that I didn't include psychological analysis or claims about other peopel secret intentions or claims that they were guided by evil spirits.

TJ: You are saying that some of those guys said you are evil?

FB: No, but that I am in the hands/guided by evil in my comments.

TJ: Bullshit.

FB: Make yourself a cup of coffee and go over that endless conversation. You'll see the pattern. Also, I suggest just reading about five minutes a day. Otherwise you'll go bonkers. Incidentally, it's not that i think Soul is being a jerk by suggesting that I might purposefully withhold information that he wants. It's just that he actually did feel the need to express that. I can honor that in a somewhat playful way by not avoiding that it has meaning in this context. And in a group that talks about angels and all the ways they manifest in day to day activity, I think it is fine for me to gently and somewhat ironically tap on those shadow moments, especially if I acknowledge my own shadow.

TJ: Do you actually acknowledge your own shadow?

FB: Read the f-ing endless thing!

I'm so glad you are back. Decided to sign up again just to say hello to you. You're cheaper than Netflix and usually more entertaining. Plus I usually learn something or am provoked to reflect. I sense the wind is picking up in certain quarters and is likely to blow. Hard, I suspect....

[findingblanks]

Yes, whenever Steiner talked about the reasons people will experience the same spiritual events in different ways (depending all sorts of social, personal, karmic, etc., factors), it squares well with a materialist finding 'magnetic fields' useful in understanding non-local information exchange. Of course, I don't mean everybody will find that congruent, but many people do and I am very open to the idea that it doesn't square up for you or anybody else.

As to finding quotes form Steiner in which he talks about factors that influence how people perceive the spirit, I will do my best to track them down. I can't promise I will be faster than other people in finding a nice selection.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, whenever Steiner talked about the reasons people will experience the same spiritual events in different ways (depending all sorts of social, personal, karmic, etc., factors), it squares well with a materialist finding 'magnetic fields' useful in understanding non-local information exchange. Of course, I don't mean everybody will find that congruent, but many people do and I am very open to the idea that it doesn't square up for you or anybody else.

Ok, that better clarifies the point you're trying to convey. Again, I appreciate whatever links you can come up with regarding Steiner's take on the ontic nature of such entities, apart from whatever imagery is projected upon them.

[findingblanks]

I'm trying to imagine being on your porch:

"Oh, Soul. I read this amazing book twenty years that helped explain why a 'magnetic field' can be a good way understand certain psychic events." Soul takes a swig of Maker's Mark and says, "You sound fairly certain of that statement. I would expect you would want to show me the book and let me read it before I agree with your certainty." Finding Blanks shifted in his chair, "Yeah, of course. God, I hate that I can't get the title. I do know people who were reading it with me back then. I know, I'll shoot them an email and see if they remember the title." Soul put down his cup. "Okay, fine. That would be useful. But I'd prefer you get me the book. If you are actually willing to find it." Finding Blanks said, "Uh, yeah, it was really cool because it made me think about how-" Soul interrupted, "It will suffice if I could just read the book myself to ascertain if you are correct in your assertions." Finding Blanks coughed and said, "Yeah, I get that," stood up and said, "Can I use the restroom, Soul?" While staring out that beauty of the horizon, Soul indicated down the hallway with is left index finger. Finding Blanks, "Cool. Great chat."

A bit of a strawman, yeah? But, hey, that's the nature of the dance. Thanks for letting me know what I said that caused you to ask for the data by which you could judge the certainty of my comments. Now I understand better.

[findingblanks]

"Ok, that better clarifies the point you're trying to convey."

Ah, great! Yes, I'll not hesitate to share any links I come up with that I think you'd find interesting, especially if I ever track down those lectures. And I expect that some passionate Anthropops will find them before me, in which case, please send them my way.

[findingblanks]

Hey Maybe-Monkey,

As you can see from my recent comments, I don't have a great memory. I don't remember if you and I have conversed, but I have a feeling it would be enjoyable and that you might not immediately feel the need to tell me what is going on in my soul that leads me to say fuzzy things like, "I think Steiner was amazing and had some blind-spots regarding his belief that Schopenhauer's entire philosophy could be destroyed in one sentence..."



But, if you would like to analyze my soul, I get the feeling it'll be a lot of fun.

[maybe_my_monkey]

Hey Maybe-Monkey,

As you can see from my recent comments, I don't have a great memory. I don't remember if you and I have conversed, but I have a feeling it would be enjoyable and that you might not immediately feel the need to tell me what is going on in my soul that leads me to say fuzzy things like, "I think Steiner was amazing and had some blind-spots regarding his belief that Schopenhauer's entire philosophy could be destroyed in one sentence..."



But, if you would like to analyze my soul, I get the feeling it'll be a lot of fun.

I had a different user name then but we didn't converse. I read that long, protracted (Steiner/Schop) thread and found it quite revealing in many ways. I also appreciated your nuanced view and that is what struck me most and appealed to me most. As a layman I didn't feel that I might have anything of value, academically or technically, to offer in that discussion. In some ways that may be a benefit as I'm not as cluttered with philosophical 'he said/she said' etc, I'm just interested in where something may take me and whether it makes sense, not whether it is right or wrong.

I'll politely decline the offer to analyse your soul, am a tad busy with my own pesky one On the other hand there's a whole bunch of questions I'd be glad of the opportunity to ask for your take on? If so, please bear in mind I'm a layman, though willing to put in the effort.

[Soul_of_Shu]

A bit of a strawman, yeah? But, hey, that's the nature of the dance. Thanks for letting me know what I said that caused you to ask for the data by which you could judge the certainty of my comments. Now I understand better.

Well, such are the limitations of this text-bound format that I misconstrued the point you were trying to convey, that point being that the so-called 'guides' in this case presented themselves as being like—if not actually—'magnetic fields' because that is the conceptual framework whereby the mediums, in this case still attached to physicalist notions, could best conceive of them. However, were they to be communicating with this psyche, they would present themselves in a framework that best suited this psyche's understanding of their ontic nature ... an understanding that is admittedly lacking at this point. In those brief and rarefied encounters I have had, not having any religion-based indoctrination, or scientific preconceptions, there has only been the sensation of an unbounded Light, with no wing-like add-ons, perceived more by some 'inner' senses than via the eyes. Hence the curiosity about how that would correspond to any actual ontic nature.

[findingblanks]

Maybe Monkey, bring on the questions! I'd love to do this in public. Is that okay? If so, is it okay with you if we create a new thread? If so, I suggest we make it an experiment in which we dialog in public and do our best to not responded to the harsh and helpful breezes that will come in. Later, after we feel we've explored our conversation decently, we can enjoy going back and learning about my (our?) blind-spots and all the rest?

I'm curious about your curiosities. .