Absorbing Orbs
This article originally appeared in Conscious Choice.
This summer, I visited Glastonbury, the New Age epicenter of England, to speak at a "Great Mysteries" conference about orbs. Orbs are best known as those mysterious balls of light that have appeared on digital photographs for the last fifteen years, though some claim they can see them with the naked eye as well. Orbs have spawned an enthusiastic subculture of people who believe the blobby wisps are not dust particles or lens anomalies, but angels, spirits, other-dimensional beings and so on. Although I am now an accredited orbs expert, I remain agnostic on the subject. In this area, one encounters the same difficulties in establishing a methodology as one does with other phenomena that float on the outer edge of cultural possibility, such as UFOs, crop circles, occult conspiracies, miraculous appearances of the Virgin and so on.
The Orbs Conference offered an eccentric collection of testimonies, channeling, scientific research and slide shows. My favorite take on the orbs came from William Bloom, a local mystic, who claims he has telepathic chats with the spheres. The orbs told him they work like "a cloud or a flock," and visit us to "support group consciousness." According to the orbs, "As we touch your individual psyches you begin consciously to experience yourselves as intimately connected with all other life forms on this planet and throughout the cosmos." A physicist who connected two cameras to take simultaneous photographs found that orbs would only appear on one or the other camera. While he took this as evidence of their quantum subtlety, it could suggest spoof rather than proof.
In my talk on the orbs, I downplayed the question of the orbs' authenticity to take a sociological approach. A postmodern phenomenon, the orbs only appeared in our world due to new technology, digital media, and social networks like Flickr, or blogs where people share orb images. As our evolving social technologies keep bringing us together in unexpected ways, Bloom's transmission about "group consciousness" is thought provoking. As media theorist Clay Shirky explores in Here Comes Everybody, new social tools are making it possible for previously unconnected groups of people to suddenly behave like a "cloud or a flock," when their interests coincide.
The orbs express a cute, trickster element by redirecting our attention. Most people first discover orbs when they are trying to photograph something else - friends at a party, a politician, their cat. Once captivated by the odd spheres floating through their images, their perspective changes: what seemed most important becomes marginal, and vice versa. A friend of mine once suggested that the year 2012 - end-date of the Mayan "long count" - might be when the center and the periphery of our attention switches places. The areas that our culture now finds important - such as possessions and wealth - might become marginal, while other areas, such as the development of soul and the ability to perceive subtle energies, will take on greater significance.
Although I do not pretend to have certainty in this area, I find the theories of the Dr. Alexey Dmitriev, a Russian scientist, to be highly intriguing. Dr. Dmitriev believes that our entire solar system is undergoing a phase transition, entering a region of the galaxy saturated with more intense cosmic energies. He has documented changes on other planets and moons around our solar system, some of which are developing atmospheres or experiencing polar reversals. One way this phase-transition is manifesting on earth is in increasing "vacuum domains" such as tornadoes, which are occurring with greater frequency. The orbs might be linked to this transition to a higher-energy state, as plasma-based vacuum domains that appear for an instant before spinning away. Plasma is the most unstable form of matter, and could be responsive to psychic energy - the orbs seem drawn, if not produced, by conscious intent. In photographs, they appear with greater frequency and in greater numbers at celebrations, group meditations, weddings and so on.
It can seem a bit reductive to seek to explain phenomena -- such as the gregarious orbs -- that reside at the periphery of our awareness. What is an explanation, in any case? Generally, it is a like cheap magician's trick that pretends to make the Mystery disappear by covering it with language. As a phenomenon, the mass interest in the orbs suggests we are going through another wave of "Spiritualism," a movement that swept the U.S. and Europe in the 1890s, bringing with it a wave of aura photography, levitating mediums and other anomalous events. Only the future will reveal whether the orbs reflect a deeper development of psychic awareness, or whether they are a fad that will soon trail off into the ether, from whence they perhaps came.
Image by Lighthelper, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 9-5-08
- Daniel Pinchbeck's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
whole life
funny, i just read your article today in whole life magazine at a cafe i frequent, and wondered why you hadn't cross-posted it yet :o)
i think your take on orbs is fascinating, and that the connection to consciousness and what we focus on is key to understanding the significance of these phenomenon.
it seems that we should begin to shift from using paranormal occurances as an opportunity to replicate belief systems (ghosts, faeries, elementals, etc...) and to see what they mean for us as we evolve.
the main reason i replied is that we had an interesting occurence at a performance on 8-8-08, and i had just recently edited the video. it's interesting, but much clearer in the original video that this light energy is shooting up in a spiral fashion (whereas in the uploaded clip the frame rate got screwed up and it looks like its just shooting up quickly.)
anyway, your article really made sense of what we witnessed, as it seemed to be directly linked to the performer's energy, and synched up with the strings in our music perfectly. here's the link...
Spiraling Orb
(opens in new window)
wanderlust
The Seventh Sense
The award-winning poet Sarah Arvio does a splendid
job "translating" these flock of consciousness beings
in her book "Visits From the Seventh." Pretty great
stuff. Here's what she says about her "voices"and
where they come from: The Seventh is the place they
inhabit: an elsewhere. I was giddily surprised when
they told me that the extrasensory sense wasn't the
sixth sense at all, but the seventh sense, a more fitting
number for a mystical sense. The seventh sense is that
uncanny sense of knowing what you've learned you
can't know.
Orbs
Disappointed
Sounds like my 9 year old saw something like that today
All i can say is, my 9 year old daughter knows nothing of all this, and I have never spoken to her about orbs and neither has anyone else. Yet today at a picnic she says 'look at that daddy', I looked up I couldn't see anything, I asked her what it was. She said ' it was a big white ball or a circle and it was there and then it went, really quickly'. I don't know anything about orbs, but I know my own flesh and blood and she saw something unusual that was round and large, appeared and then dissapeared. As for cameras, can't say. Hmmm interesting.
Ricochet
I'll have to chime in with the party-poopers:
I have looked at scores of these "orb" pictures and I have not seen a single one that is not obviously attributable to flash ricochet, or some other technical artifact -like lens flare or motion blur- intrinsic to photographic technology.
I have been hoping all my life to make and/or see photographic proof of the miraculous, but this ain't it.
As a matter of fact, I've used the effect of flash ricochet in many of my own photographs for twenty years.
It is very interesting to me how deeply people run in their imaginations with this. The same thing happens to me when I see it in my pictures, even though I know the mechanical cause. It does hold a charm. I like kaleidoscopes too.
I have to confess that the credulity of the crowds who so eagerly explain them as manifestations of some paranormal phenomenon rather troubles me. There are so many genuine mysteries at the fringes of our knowledge that call out for our most careful scrutiny, and this seems like a distraction. It also carries the danger of marginalizing anyone who explores any "fringe" phenomena, just by prejudiced association. "Oh, I bet you believe in 'Orbs' too."
Retreat to Postmodernism
Daniel, isn't there a better solution to "How do we have a modern spirituality," beyond dismissing all explaining, reasoning, and use of language?
Do you really give science (and scientists, and the scientific method) & imagination (and psychics, and religious conviction) equal weight, in determining what's a factual explanation?
Do you think science is a pretty good methodology, for determining the nature of reality? How do you compare it with, say, psionics?
I suspect that that you want to side-step disasgreement and contention, because you are working to connect the cultures. I think that this is a noble cause; There is incredible value in both cultures. Spiritualists express heart, and scientists study natural reality. These good voices at each other's necks, and so there's need of synthesis. But I think this "retreat into the postmodern" is just faux synthesis, not really leading people into the right place.
Haven't we just been through decades of post-modern "nothing is true, reality is indiscernable, you wouldn't want to see it even if you could, what's true for you is true for you, ..." ..? I challenge you to find a better way.
My question is now: "How do I inspire people to work towards visions of naturalistic spirituality?"
i like this other guy's chemtrail theory in the comments
post-modern poo flinging
CJ- While I agree with you on hit and run points and love your desire to jump in as protector on this one for a b.s. chemtrails blah blah post- I think Lion has an interesting point.
While post-modernism certainly leaves room for all threads to be considered- it does have a kind of "nothing is real" essence and in my eyes sometimes amounts to "the truth is tarnished beyond all recognition and the copies upon copies" or photographs of orbs are more real than the real thing- which of course- everyone in this conversation is rebelling against.
It seems paradoxical and counter-intuitive to me that someone who is seeking empirical truth (you can feel his desire in your gut) would fall back on "what's true for you is true for you in quantum reality it's all good but that doesn't mean it's real" as this seems to undo the power of the work which at some level is seeking objective truth (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't necessarily mean this critique in regards to this article but as an overall flavor and sense I get from the approach to grok alien wizdom.
From a writer who often takes an empirical approach backed by science which says there is an empirical truth beyond Schroedinger's Meow- I too think it is time to get out of the box and take the cat by his nuts.
Whereas a "naturalistic spirituality" in this case might refer to oral tradition and first-hand accounts of people who have seen orbs and relay their tales to others who trust their opinions. This is akin to a trusted friend telling you about an experience with an orb or UFO- and you- in good faith- believe your friend because your friend has never lied to you. With the sheer amount of these experiences unfolding globally- this is not a far-out way to expect to begin to believe. Alien science is more advanced than human science, so how can a lesser advanced form encompass a more advanced form and retain all its pixelated color?
I for one think faith and first-hand account need to replace this obsession with physical evidence that these phenomena are real. Their physical evidence- if anything- is meeting you in the current state of your mental evolution which is but a baby step to the knowledge that the most enlightened E.T.s are not physical at all. Consider it flattering that they might want to even attempt to communicate in your language at all what with all the good it does for your attempt to poo fling the messenger into submission.
If you have doubts
Miceal Ledwith spoke in Warrington, PA 9/26/08
I heard Miceal Ledwith speak in Warrington, PA on 9/26/08. He showed his DVD on orbs and then discussed his experience with them. While I have a lot of respect for him on his impressive life journey, I found myself challenged to simply take in and agree upon everything he was saying. His relationship to the phenomenon is quite personal. I think his sort of unscientific personal experimentation requires much more for purposes of inspiring belief than most subject matter, therefore. He said that anyone who spent one to two hours per day photographing orbs would be able to see them with their naked eyes after a period of two years. I couldn't help thinking, well, the world (most of us) will never know if that's true or untrue, because we don't have enough interest or inclination to find out (I do presume). He also called for people to remain grounded with the subject and predicted that if the treatment orbs have begun to receive from less grounded folks should keep up that orbs will be a passing fancy at large. He seemed to geniunely hope that would not be the case as he himself finds orbs to be a tool for potentially learning the way to perform the great works that Jesus spoke of each of us having the potential to perform. I also recalled Chet Snow's work in connection with this notion in terms of those whose personal (as opposed to mass) dream of the future was to be in a place of unison with nature and be able to manifest that which was necessary for their survival. I believe that Miceal would be a teacher for those wishing to pursue such capabilities. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his talk the next day on Jesus and the Quantum Field which he said he intended to tie in with the orbs some more. Anyway, most interesting and certainly many, many amazing photos!
Disappointed
Normaly I like the essays, books and speaches of Daniel Pinchbeck but this time I am really disappointed. Every filmmaker or photographer can explain in a very simple way what is happening in this photos.
Flashlight, dirt, reflection and than the mistery is happening maybe the right angle is important and it is not easy to create it by purpose. Waste of time and energy which should be invested in real problems or interesting concerns.
For example for the german-users of realitysandwich protest against GM corn(MON810) from monsanto in Germany. website: http://www.genmais-stoppen.de/gentec/pc2/pcard
Sorry but this childish theme was to much so I had to put this real hard fact GM corn problem against it. Hope for the next Pinchbeck text in its ususal open but good researched manner.
Best regards iamasimpelman
The Invasion of the Bindu
Hi Iamasimpleman,
I am sorry that you are disappointed, but in what way is this Daniel Pinchbeck’s fault? Yes, he is no doubt one of the “co-creators” of “reality”, but almost certainly he did not invent the lead sunglasses you are wearing. Already, the meta-language of the Bindu has invaded. Complex circles have been projected onto History, updating the flat Earth.
Sir- as Krishnamurti might have said- please allow me to ask one question: Why do you assume that orbs only appear in videos or in photographs?
For quite a number of years, between say, 1990 and 1996, whenever I would enter a high energy state, which at that point was every day, as my immediate environment would begin to vibrate like a network made of lightning, right there in front or above or in back of me would be an orb. There was no escape, and no way to avoid dealing with its long list of demands, with its transmission of faster-than- light encyclopedic knowledge.
Was I hallucinating? Well, no. I have complete faith in my powers of direct perception, as you do in yours; I tend to notice when a weapon has been aimed straight at my head.
To avoid death, I was allowed to step up or step down the explosive flow of exploration, but there was no way that I could refuse to cooperate with its agenda. The orb was not in any way a purely optical phenomenon. It was never clear to me if it existed in physical or in psychic space, since it seemed to partake of both of these, and of neither. It was a messenger from the nonexistent databank of the gods, the body of the primordial female/male, the incarnation of the ancient future, the sphere that preceded the dismemberment of the worlds.
Call it “Bindu” if you wish, or the “Eye of Ra”, or the “Telos”, or the “Stone of the Philosophers.” One thing, however, was made absolutely clear: that I should regard it as the beginning and the end point of creation.
Beautiful Discussion O R B S
I noticed that this blog contained mostly posts of people that believe in orbs or those that don't. Taking one view or the other. Trying to convince or denounce.
I think the whole point that Daniel was trying to make in this article is that it isn't about whether they are real or not, but how they are affecting us as a conscious observer... more or less.
What is being stimulated in our minds when we enter into this "debate"? This search for truth. I've come to enjoy observing the beautiful presentation of ideas and enjoying the process of exchange. Look where we are relating to one another, its awesome! As opposed to choosing a belief.
Notice that Daniel, took a very joyful objective stance and didn't pretend to know if they are real or not...
Think of duality. If we take a stance its easy for the ego to cling to a view. If we rest in our center as an objective witness; we start to dissolve the dualism. If we can learn to become more objective witnesses and not cling to one view or the other we can start to see a beautiful pattern emerge.
To put the ego aside ...
"Place your wonder in the wonder"
Om Shanti
-Aloka
"When the power of LOVE overwhelms the love of power, the world will know peace" - J.H
Well put
The end of Time at the Center of the Universe
The end of Time at the Center of the Universe
Oh Yeah?
While I find much of interest in this piece -- and thank you, Daniel -- what I really want to know is, how come I haven't seen any of these "orbs"??? I live in TAOS, NEW MEXICO, dammit. If ever there was a place where we ought to be up to our navels in fucking phase-shifting phenomena, this is it.
www.farrfeed.com
Opening of the Records
Hi All,
Here is a poem written during the period that I described in my post "The Invasion of the Bindu." It is section 10 from my book "To Akasha/ Part 2":
Opening of the Records
That jung frau will rebuild from ash the burning library at Alexandria. For a third time will the Argo sail- it will move beyond the speed of light.
Records breaking records will be present to your touch. The Zodiac will swing. Space will be curved by a bell. The 4 worlds as at once will interpenetrate. Orange are the orbs of Ra that will spin above Eastern Europe. Knowledge will explode.
Hieroglyphs will appear to thousands over Prague.
Long dead- you will sound! Habrock will return from Ur to Eden with his hawks. Elvis will return to Graceland. He will be taken from his great chrome cylinder- thawed out. He will bring a note from mother. The teacher will be an inch. Loki will bring his flytings to the 12 guardians on Nibiru.
Giants aimed at the muse will evacuate the stars. The extended hand will flame. Shadows thrown by geometry will lash the oceanic fort.
A trickster will crow. Ahriman will hang his body sky high on a hook. The age of iron will grind Einstein into flower. Pacific breakers will make love to atoms. Nagas will milk saki. Solomon will open mills. Braagi will bring many poets. Light will weigh their year of work. The Elohim will order: scale the globe. The hounds are to be rounded up by Garm.
A ziggurat in Babylon will sing out in 10 thousand tongues. The Virgin of Judea will stalk naked over Assur’s pots.
Shards will wheel clay citizens. A blackened branch will light a leaf. Veins will mine plutonium. Solar wells will spout. A race will run with the remnant of Methuselah. The Desert Mothers will return with urns to the Euphrates. They will laugh at Krystalnacht. Skoll The Wolf no longer will scare mortals.
Zion will again put on the laundered robe of Io. A laser will be shot from Israel to Jupiter.
War will be declared on the improper use of trees. Books will have no pages. Telepaths will judge the haunted farms. Few of the many will not at first go mad. Joy will punish death. The bird that fought on Mars will take the gag from the future’s mouth. The One will fix itself. Orange agents will scout factories in Thule for Tetragramaton. Teachers will attract the spokes.
Alpine horns will ram through gravity. At midnight they will make a little zone of music.
12 concentric tribes above America will fly. They will involute the Earth. They will triumph over the race. Young will flex the sun at full strength out of Vala. Up he will lift the watcher in his cup. Instruments will cause a god. Arks will party. The Reichstag will again burn bright with dancing human UFOs.
uranium
Crying Diamond Sun
But will blackened hearts make Zorlock queef?
Skoll The Wolf no longer scares
But will scars on hearts meet headlong stares
In stars too distant for mortal eyes
Meet love’s barometer and pluto’s thighs
The orbs of Earth the skies of Death
The Justified Venom of Asuras’ Breath
God- All is Good- and Good is Dead
Will thoust still give us please our daily bread?
We’ve toiled this planet we’ve paid all our debts
We’ve built altars and pyramids to hedge all our bets
Confuse me with your light so I may crave clarity again
Destroy me so that I may crave your wholeness and bend
Kill me with your cosmic chainsaw and then
Diamond Sun Agenda (NOT New World Order) will win
We who are about to die salute you
Hi Joan,
In a reversal of the roles of the aggressor and the victim, the poems from this period duplicate my experience of being taken apart and then reassembled by the energy of the preexistent orb; they are weapons aimed at the head.
They are also yoga in the guise of poetry; ecstatic vehicles, which can potentially whisk the reader from one dimension to another. You have correctly decoded the challenge that they pose, and have responded with two sets of delightful variations on these themes.
Thank you. Your attentiveness would have made me a happy camper, indeed, had my world view not been shattered.
Just imagine my surprise upon reading many of the other comments on this article; to discover that my soul and body had been reprogrammed by a speck of dust on a camera lens! I really should go back to school.
:-)
Let's start a new school where the professors are the students and the photography majors are required to print their orb and UFO pictures on holographic paper. Poetry is the only mandatory course at the school.
Bless me prof. I run amok-
I never meant to make
A quagmire of ingratitude,
A charcoal birthday cake
A cloak of ill remembrances
spun sorely oer my heart
Blackened blood clot throbbing clit
A Cutting Flame of smart
Too cool for trust too fast for bliss
A lasting thrust I stake
"The Man" no more- no need to score
I meant to burn that cake
Wait! They'll say! What do clits have to do with empirical data and synthesis and space and birthday cakes and where's my report card to let me know how I'm doing? The Archangel Michael then comes and burns their diplomas and their orb pictures while Loki cackles at the cremation of our collective burnt contracts. Medusa turns all the students to stone. Super Mario decimates the statues with his hammer and gets zapped up to star land where the coins are all see-through and Luigi is drinking a margarita.
Re: 'delete this user' and 'wow'
Can someone fill us in about the disappearance of Richard Merrick's articles, blog, etc? What happened over the last week-end? I have no idea since my server was disabled from 28 August to 5 September. It also seems his name changed throughout the RS pages. Is it now "delete this user"?
merrick's disappearance
hi roger,
merrick took all of his work off the site because he felt attacked, repeatedly, in the comments section by two people. I found his work to be some of the most important and interesting on the website. Not everyone is thick-skinned or feels they have to accept the punishment of endless nattering criticism from these egomaniacs. We posted our comments guidelines months ago. From now on, we will follow them quite rigorously. If someone descends into personal attacks, or digresses from the subject of the article, their comments will be removed. If they want a place to make such statements, they can do it in the forums area, which is unmoderated at this point. However, if that becomes a morass of negativity, we will pull the plug there as well.
I would prefer that people cared about the future of this site rather than jeopardizing it in order to get a bit of meaningless attention. Unfortunately, some of the posters here seem unable to control themselves.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
er . . . okay
Hmmm. Well, maybe the answer is in my email in-box which is currently inaccessible to me . . .
So, there was some spat in a blog. What else is new?
I'm trying to remember that new name, that used to be 'Richard Merrick' and became something else, and then it became 'delete user'.
I'm actually interested in the information Pinchbeck is talking about, and don't want to 'hijack' the topic into more acrimony or whatever. Still, I find it hard to believe whatever Merrick may have done to tick-off RS ownership could warrant complete erasure of all he has contributed and what other responders contributed.
Shouldn't there be at least an archive of an 'exed' out 'prior' contributor? And maybe he had a melt down and became obnoxious to the owners of RS. How does that warrant erasing responder's thought and word-expressed?
This is like 'rewriting' history by chisel.
Not Kosher.
er... not really okay
I love woo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMFnQCfHWro
Recent orb video from California. Decide for yourself.
I myself remain not agnostic but indifferent as to the explanation of these types of phenomenon. If alien beings exist and are visiting earth in order to improve or support mankind then great, we need all the help we can get. As long as they don't get in the way of any kind of real progress. But if they exist and are visiting earth in order to molest or destroy mankind then we have a problem. Fortunately, I think we can safely rule out this possibility.
So until we see orbs waging wars or imposing dictatorships I probably won't pay much attention to them. Because right now all they seem to do is float around and ruin people's pictures.
Well, anyway
I'm feeling a little sad and think it sobering to experience an absence. Then we want to go back and restudy a presence now absent. And I think it utterly unfair to castigate someone absent . . . whether by personal choice or by an imposed . . . what is that fancy 40-cent word that means 'to be excluded'? Sounds like it might have been Merrick's choice. I'm familiar with many geniuses who are highly sensitive and are such because they have by some means or another avoided diversion of their insights by ignoring doubters and castigators and critics or 'can't'-ers. And I know of some geniuses who were adamantine beyond reason, and lost the ability to grow or incorporate essential information that could have aided their genius and creativity. Such stories are never black and white.
I didn't agree with all Merrick espoused and expressed, but I feel enriched by him as I do all here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like criticism and think it part and parcel to all expression that we pay for the privilege by taking knocks and batterings and even the slight-of-hand of complement that might actually be a suggestion to put a period on a merely developing insight. It would be a childish ego that thinks it has put the 'capstone' on any collection of thought or idea or experience. "yea! I got attention and praise: DONE!" Yeah, right.
So, be that as it may, on to this topic of the 'orb'-ism.
I'm thinking about the new mandate of the transmission of all information via television be 'digital' rather than 'analog'.
There is a form of digital capture that is slightly different from the CCD or "charged coupled-device" and it is termed "Charge injected device".
This latter technology was used to capture in real time the wave front of a beam of light. According to the source of this information, this camera was able to take many millions of frames per second.
That is impressive. The old film from the beginning of photography onto the era of motion-picture cameras utilized a quantum configuration too: atoms of silver on cellulose.
The configuration of the silver atom today is still not completely understood or 'perfectly' delineated.
Anyone can study these antique films and also see 'orbs' and oddities that cannot be explained simply on the basis of 'lens' effects or glares or what have you. We can only speculate that some these 'effects' might represent flaws in the distribution of the reactive or 'capturing' medium: the silver-solution wasn't evently distributed or somebody dropped some sweat on the film-strip, etc. Speculation, retrospectively, can be endless, which the 'Psi-cops' will resort to endlessly to say: all is as it should be, all is material and perfectly explainable. And that is the end of all enquiry. Thanks. Sorry I was curious.
Cosmic rays impinge on the retina of the eye and we experience a little 'spark' floating - - - apparently - - - in external space.
These interactions are so transient, it is rare to undergo them and be able to react quickly enough to turn our head or eyes and so be able to judge: that is happening in my eye, and isn't really 'out there'. And, even if it is 'out there', the processor is without doubt rather hermetically sealed in our skulls. So. Do with that what you may.
This impingement of these highly energetic particles from who knows where (believe it or not, this most highly studied phenomenon has no single and accepted explanation), will now and then actually impact the chip at the interface of the digital camera and that will be translated into the finished stored memory of the device. And these same particles will over time actually degrade the memory chip eventually. Who knows how long that would take. But 'orbs' can appear in digital images which are old and in which no 'orbs' actually were observed in prior viewings.
As the sun moves around the galactic center, it it not illogical to assume that some regions are relatively 'cold' and relatively 'hot': less cosmic ray activity versus more.
Translating these purely geometric possibilities into some 'spiritual' fundement may not warranted and at the exact same time, may not be that far-fetched. How the environment affects consciousness can be seen by looking at how people differ from equator to polar regions. There are significant differences and so that suggests, in turn, that any 'spiritual' or 'material' approach must at least account for these intersections wherein the 'material' and the 'spiritual' or 'psi' observations merge. I'm not drawing any conclusions. It's definitely not 'black and white'. There is so much we just don't know.
Interesting article.
======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." HERBERT<
Just one other thing:
Digital transmission is much more easily altered or 'captured and edited' than 'analog' signals.
The ratios of vertical and horizontal are also going to be highly maleable, and I predict many people will get sick looking at television after this 'conversion'. Vertigo will become rampant. We will come to a truly gut experience of sympathy with the idea long ago suggested: kill your tv.
This conversion is an idiotic plan. There is no 'backup', there is no 'fail-safe'. This is the problem of 'photo-editing' via artists (think of the Kent State shootings photo that was 'air-brushed' to take out a pole to satisfy an editor's 'esthetic judgement') writ-large into the entirely obscure region of 'computer nerd shills' working for any-what-all pervert like Rove or Cheney who judge that all is fair in 'war'. And they are at war with truth. Anybody remember when Colin Powell's kid was head of the FCC?
Sickening.<
Reactions . . . funny? maybe just different
I'll give credit to the idea that specialized language . . . 'physics' type talk, or 'math-type' talk, are going to leave most of us in the dark.
Could it not be, that someone investigating a single train of thought gets taken up into a vocabulary that automatically stratifies relevant conversation?
Well, a dumbell like me might take the time to learn these terms to get access to these levels of 'relative expertese' only to find these people are arguing and debating and exploring the same things any dumb-bell like me do on the level of marbles and stick and loop and playing 'Tarzan' in the bushes.
Same concepts, different lingo. We expose ourselves to new things and find either: we like the talk and the people talking or we don't. What does this have to do with intrinsic value of what's talked about?
If I am really lazy, and don't really want to have to go through the turmoil and rigor to learn this new vocabulary, just to get in on the conversation, I think I might have to simply drop out and find others with more relevant talk or terminology or vocabulary. More'n likely, I'll toss my head left or right and mumble: elitists! How cum you caint dumb-down yer talk?
I'm really trying to understand this. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what possible motivation could lead anyone to be so viscious towards another as to give or leave no room for the possibilty that they themselves are wrong. And, even if not wrong, to be right must have, in some way, a generosity so as to not find in the errant one any grounds for personal gloating about one's right-ness and justification for feeling happy that that errant one is now extinct. In polite society, sometimes, it pays to just not pay any attention to gaffs and mis-steps. To harp on such proves to the world and is a testimony of one's own ungenerous character. To forget is to forgive. It takes some heart to be willing to forget. I think I'll go do that now. 'Cause this entire thing is very unpleasant.
Have I rebuked thee? Am I now a hypocrit? Very well, so mote it be. For I have always enjoyed your rebukes of me.
Again: a big blank now
Well, I'm completely at a loss. Since:
Number one: I can no longer review the sequence of posts from the beginning to the 'end' of Merricks original article and so see where-all this schism began . . .
Number two: can't contribute intelligently to the sequalae that refers back to those 'lost pages' or erased pages.
So, I guess, I'll just pick up from where we are.
I had to look up this term "troll", but only because it came up in a NY Times Cross-word pussle and it came out as a 'lurker' or someone who reads but doesn't talk.
Interesting. This really is interesting, since this is what Benjamin Franklin felt about Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was known as a very 'quiet' person, didn't orate, was a kind of odd stand-back type of individual.
We only know about Jefferson today as a President and the author of the Declaration of Independence. But he was a 'troll', I guess.
Right you guys? That little idiot.
What's this business about 'trolls' really all about? I don't get it. Who, ever, was a writer or maybe publisher, who expected every reader to respond and be something more than a reader? Is this business about 'trolls' some kind of class-distinction between writers versus 'readers'? Well, Jefferson listened for years and restrained any enunciation of his personal thought until it was so aged or matured and self-informed or public-informed as to be, in his estimation: informed.
So, I find this attitude summarized under this term 'troll' just pejorative and a summarization by maybe someone who is less careful, less concise and less terse but maybe also less deep. When the 'troll' speaks, there is this lashing out.
Alright. Fine. You go do that. We are known by our fruits. Judged by our words. I'm content to believe it is okay to speak injudiciously as long as room is left to repent of such later. We are all informed by the reaction of our listeners or readers. (I have edited this post to remove personal information. December 2008).
Anger and un-self-regulated reaction can go too far. And I think this has happened here. It is tragic. You have no idea. Not kind. Not good in my humble view. We have the right to grouse and critique. But what I've seen here is a kind of all-out warfare. And I call that highly ugly and I'm no party to it. You go do that. Leave me out of it.
Despise me not, for I am not poor. Poor alone are those whose desires are merely material.
Paraphrase of Leonardo Da Vinci.
Oh, and by the way
I'm fully aware of disinformation specialists and not 'trolls' but topic-diverting 'hit-men/women'. People of the same ilk as Rove and Cheney, people who spend a lot of their salaried hours fixing up specialized results.
These folk think they are smarter than everyone.
When reality smacks them in the face, they find reality is much kinder than they, in this new realization, estimate they deserve. And there are no recriminations. There is an inbuilt fault in all summing and every estimation of counting and this problem automatically provides not only for us to err but gives every error an outlet. It doesn't, at the same time, mean one won't be spanked.
Here's a little saw, I don't remember who told me: Somewhere back in time a child did some little pecadillo, and as was wont to that time and culture, the child wasn't punished by the parents, but by the grandparents. And this grandparent told the called-forth child to do a certain thing: go out younder and cut down a switch of the field wherewith you'll be spanked. And, the child, being 'smart', walking across the expanse, had a 'genius' insight: "I'll cut down the smallest possible switch".
Ah! Not very smart. The smaller the switch, the greater the sting. Now, if the kid was smart, they would have brought back a log. <
Orbs?
We'll see
I for one don't know what happened. If Merrick had an epiphany or a "hissy fit" or if his topics were removed by RS or some other possibility. It is very interesting all by itself. Now I, for one, am gonna return to Daniel's piece.
A report
This is a first-hand account:
"I was hitchiking to the coast and after a couple of rides, ended up near a small logging town. This was in Oregon and along Highway 26."
"So, this was near about November, and it was pretty cold and I was thinking what a stupid thing to be trying to get to Canon Beach. And so here I was at about 3 a.m. and walking along the highway after my last ride. I picked up a rock, and threw it at a light-pole in the parking lot where I was dropped off, and I guess I hit it square in the middle, as I heard it clank. And instantaneously, the ark-light went out."
"I hit the pole at about eye-level, but it coincidently went out. So it was now pitch-black. The sky was over-cast and so there were no stars. Nothing.
"I guess there was some light from the building of attached to the parking-lot, since I found the highway and began walking west. I wanted to walk on that side, since in this area, hitchhiking was now out of the question and I wanted to see any oncoming traffic so I could step off the road to avoid being road-kill. I was about 8 miles from the coast and figured I'd walk along and find some tree to lean against."
"I was going to see a girl I knew who lived in Canon Beach. It was on a whim and so there I was.
"At any rate, after walking, rather, feeling my way along the road, I saw a light off to the left through the trees and I became aware of a rather noisy clanking and banging and the sounds of chains or equipment of some kind. I figured it was night-time logging or road-construction up in the hills there and the light I saw was either a construction-trailer or maybe a cabin porch light.
"So, that was my kind of marker for moving forward and hoped there would be some turn-off of the highway where I could find a tree to sit under. Trees did tower over the highway and the horizon was vaguely visible as the over-cast sky did appear lighter than the forest all around. But the road was raised, and to my left, it dropped down. I could still see the light ahead and to my left, but now it seemed to be more at right angles and so I stopped to look and peered at it to try and make out the structure to which it was attached.
"I was a little surprised that I had made that much ground, because it didnt' seem I'd actually walked that much. And now, looking at this light I could see it wasn't just a single light, but a collection of lights. Like those little christmas tree lights. Pure white and scintilating.
"But these were now kind of undulating up and down. I felt like, maybe this was kinesthesia like when you step off an elevator and still feel like you're moving. So I turned my head back west and looked at the horizon or the region where the trees met the sky, and could see that they were stock-still just as I was, standing in pitch-black on this highway.
"Looking back at the lights, now, they were not only moving slowly up and down, but weaving back and forth. Sometimes they disappeared behind trees and my first thought these were people with lanterns or something moving down a logging road. Then I became aware the noises had ceased. All was perfect silence. And these undulating little lights. Maybe six to nine little lights. It made me a little sick to look at them as they were making me feel dizzy.
"Just to bolster myself up, I joked and spoke aloud take me to your ladder . . . er leader.
"Next thing I knew, I was walking west again and had no recollection of seeing the lights disappear or what happened and it was getting light or near dawn because the sky was now a definite pale grey.
"I came upon a turn out and it lead up an incline and I went up it a ways and laid down.
"When I got up. I decided to go back up the highway back to the east. I covered the ground from the turn-out to the original drop-off in about 300 yards.
"And I was surprised to see that in the region I saw those lights, it wasn't a hill, but steep drop off into a creek and the turn-off place was on the East side of a kind of mount or hill. All covered with old growth and brambles. Not near where I saw the lights.
"I gave up trying to reach the beach, and decided to hitchhike back and ended up in Eugene. After a few days there, I went with some people up into the mountains to a hot spring. We got there in about the middle of the night. Near midnight. I went for a walk, again in pitch dark, and sat down on a large boulder. And after resting, walking back to the camp, I looked out into the dark, and guess what? yep: those little lights. Some 150 miles away from my first encounter.
"Next day, during camp clean-up, after a pancake breakfast we were talking and reminiscing about our various things. And I decided to talk about my experiences. And this fellow spoke up before I could say anything and said to me in low tones: 'I suppose you're gonna talk about the lights you saw?'
"I was non-plussed by this. I had said nothing before to anyone about these experiences. And he was not all that friendly in his attitude. Then, once again, I seemed to come away from the camp without recalling anything after what that guy said that to me.
"So that was that. It wasn't any ufo encounter. Unless these things can be the size of dimes and marbles. I don't know what to make of it."
I recorded this report about 8 years ago, and left out some details from the original. So here is this and it has nothing to do with cameras, just the naked eye. I don't think it would have been a case of self-deception or mis-identification of 'fire-flies'. Number one: Oregon doesn't have any fire-flies as far as I know. Number two, even if that might be possible, they wouldn't be flying about in November or December.
There is some high-strangeness to this report and that might be just subjective reaction or due to sleep-deprivation or inebriation. I don't know. That it happened twice in as many days and hundreds of miles apart and the mention of this by a complete stranger puts it in this high-strangeness category.
Sun-spots and position in galactic cosmic-ray 'hot spots' per Dmitriev might explain some camera phenomena, but not this report. Unless we can accomodate that relative geometric/galacto-metric position alters the function of brain/consciousness/ perceptive modalities so that we can see otherwise 'invisible' things.
I find it interesting such things happen so frequently without corroborative witnesses. Maybe such experiences are meant to be cherished. They have an intimacy about them despite the fact so often people describe them as fearful and disturbing. Maybe they can be.
I don't know.
"Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."
"No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!"
"The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!"
"Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!"
Just my usual stuff
Quite a few contributors here (including myself) have criticized scientific reductionism, when it turns into 'all-knowing scientism'. On the other hand I haven't seen anyone making complaints about being able to use scientific reductionism's practical results, as f.ex. internet.
But 'scientism' and science's practical results originate from the same source, the difference being how this common source is used/manifested.
The same can be said about f.ex. 'magic'. 'Black' and 'white' magic is fundamentally just magic with different goals.
Individually we have each our personal talents and characteristics, upon which we base our personal relationship with the rest of cosmos (unless we have acchieved transcendence ofcourse, where the feeling of living as isolated islands isn't so pronounced).
And as with science and magic, we can point this our personal potential in different directions, and thus end up relating in different ways. Maybe it's necessary for some people to have a bazooka at hand, when a mosquito turns up. Others hide in ignorant bliss in the consumer's artificial paradise, etc.
But cosmos is unbending in it's insistence on causality. There will always be consequences. So when we make our personal choices of aims and methods, it would be wise to first consider, what it is, we REALLY strive for. Answers or personal gratification.
As a person I have my share of quirks, idiosyncracies and other characteristics, which I know to be occasionally dysfunctional, and often outside my conscious control. I have MY version of my own misuse of what is at my disposal, and I'm only partly aware of the extent of my shortcomings and what to do about them. But I am aware of the problem in general, and give it a high priority in form of a search for selfknowledge.
I can still react negatively to what I feel is an invasion of my personal space (including my right to forming my own non-missionary ideology), but a lot of the rest contains a possibility for many and big 'maybe's.
So the question of whether orbs (and other badly understood phenomena) belongs to science, psychology or paranormal research isn't really that important to me. The more different angles used for finding answers, the better chances of finding such answers.
Trans-discipline methods requires communication, and if communication breaks down already at the level of personal chemistry, well then...... Words will just be meaningless.
If there will be any next post from me on this subject, I'll be more specific, directing my attention to orbs.
the meaninglessness
In reviewing this particular blog, I find at this point again and again that last sentence:
"some call it GOD but this word is meaningless."
I think that that is true and why the word "GOD" is so powerful or null.
What do we see or feel when we say this word "GOD"?
We may as well say "x" or "unknown".
For me, the word "GOD" is a special emphasis on something in a range of meanings that passes by rather unnoticed under our direct experiences of 'good'.
When I was in kindergarten, other kids kept talking about "GOD" and "Jesus" and stuff about which I knew nothing . . . and still know next to nothing.
I asked my parents one night, as I did my daily reading for them as proof of the effectiveness of education . . . I was given a book randmomly selected and I was to read and show I could read.
And, passing a test one evening I asked: 'who is God?'
I recall my mother saying: "God is the word 'Good' with one 'O' missing."
And I asked: 'Who is Jesus?'
And I cannot recall whether it was Mother or Father who answered: "Jesus was a good man misunderstood."
I do recall they both were in perfect agreement.
In later years, I ran across a lecture about 'meditation' and it was said that using this word "GOD" could raise the body vibrations. And it was also said that seeing the body when saying the word was neccessary to realize the power in the word.
Elsewhere, it was also said one could put this in ones' own language, and so it seemed to imply that the sound in English we enunciate as "GOD" is but one of many sounds that can be empowered. We designate power and impose limits of power on other words.
Why can't power be in the word "Sh*t"?
Why is that sound only associated with disgust and anger or frustration?
Why do we say "G*d d*mn it!"
So I rather am in agreement with you here. This is rather meaningless until we give it accord for power and meaning.
I cannot do so utterly, however, since in part of my research, I've found a practice of yoga that is called 'Kechari'. And that involves a recognition in the way the tongue is positioned in the cavity of the mouth. And the relationship that yoga holds for this is that it relates back to 'currents of power' and the streaming of this power from above to below and from below to above or vice versa. And the word "GOD" or even the word "DOG" is directly related to this 'kechari mudra' as a 'drinking of soma'. The process of swallowing water spontaneously does force us to say "GOD" or "DOG".
And so, they say, power moves. Highly mechanical, just forces. What about the values of sentiment? Of feeling? Of love or wisdom, does that arise as we drink? Or utter "GOD"?
What is in a sound? Is there really some ultimate value implaced in our awareness by some sound? Or does our consciousness evolve body that makes such sounds?
What comes first? What evolves what? What creates what?
If "GOD" summarizes something: what is that? If it summarizes nothing, why is that? Is "GOD" just no-thing? And is that salvation? To realize void?
Or can we use the word to summarize all human experience and by selection reject the evils therein?
Or can "GOD" mean: 'put your name here or the people you love here' or 'your name and their name: here'?
"God" is not no nothing. Nor, so some something so. It is select. Some prefer it be external. Others internal or even just personal and excludes everyone else. So we have megalomaniacs, up or down, to 'devotees'. The average person seems never to be included. A mean or average apart or at least away and wary from extremes. Not milk-toast or 'luke-warm'ism. Rather: discernment. Justice, fairness and equality.
Saying "GOD" a million times a day will not yield one iota of 'realization' until we empower it to MEAN something. And if that 'meaning' is only derived from books or theory or words of others and not the folk about us we love, I really do prefer the word mean 'no-thing'. If it add nothing to our regard for what we have about us, it adds nothing. It may even take away what we do have by inducing us to seek for something we believe we have not in those we have.
I note that the last adjugded king of the "ends of the Earth" was named 'Parikshit'. He gave permission to the tormentor of 'virtue' - - - in the form of a Cow, who stood on only one leg of four - - - he gave this tormentor leave to go and live in something akin to 'Vegas'. He did not kill this villain, but gave room to this villain to continue to live. As such, this ones' nam has ever been associated with 'bad times' and, wrongly, blamed for all evil. And so people say 'prick' and "Sh*t", I believe, in racial memory of this era when normal spontaneous virtue saw in righteous politick accomodation to evil rather than what it was: allegory of spectrum of consciousness: without a spectrum of choices there is no free will. So you are right: "GOD" is meaningless if we don't see it can mean all the good or all the bad we choose to do. We make 'x' ideal.
Exalting the Differences of the Other
The more different angles used for finding answers, the better chances of finding such answers.
Amen to that!
Okay, I'm ignrent
Will you please explain this term 'f.ex.' What is this referring to? I now know what a 'troll' means or is. I'm, like, kind of embarassed. I've been using the internet since 1994 or so, and never bothered to learn this. And so, I'm curious enough and know maybe I'm dense enough. I'm not getting what this term means from context or searching it on google.
As for your methodology. I think you would enjoy reading John Dewey. I'm thinking of at least two primers that refer almost word for word of what you have described: A Common Faith and, Interest and Effort in Education.
Before you or anyone jumps to any conclusions by the first title, it is a little book not about 'religion' but faith in one's own intelligence or faith in the 'methods of intelligence' and delineates a practice of investigation that uses sharing or communication most prominently. Science is NOT the golden egg of some one or another 'genius', but a body of information that has as its foundation reliance on a systematic approach and repeatability by the curious. In more complex writings, Dewey also dwells on the problem of 'science' as a culture capable of becoming bogged down by a kind of obsessive-compulsive and needless microscopic exclusionism. Curiosity then becomes entrained in 'modes' and issues of 'tenure' and 'accepted' precedents. Much valuable insight is lost by being buried in the shear volume of investigation no mere billions can explore minutely. Treasures lost right out in the published. Ignored by politic in science. Very odd.
We are operating today under some of the rules set up by James Clerk Maxwell, who found it convenient to exclude 'outside' data, to restrict research to certain defined problems or objects of attention. And this method was writ large upon ideas of 'perpetual motion' as impossible, despite the fact there is absolutely no scientifically established datum to support such hermeticism in nature. Energy is everywhere, but we are always saying it is limited and mathematically countable and can not be drawn from outside this arbitrary or Maxwellian dictum of circumscribed attention.
This is all about attention then, and doesn't circumscribe actuality.
I'm with you, and I'm with CJ, that remark about the word "GOD". We can make the term equivalent to the 'x' in algebra. For some, the 'x' is prefigured and imposed by prior sets or conditions. For others, like me, it is 'unknown'. Unknown. For me, THAT is most beautiful.
I don't like prefigured answers, and really had a problem with instruction on that very basis. Teachers asking questions which they obviously had already some 'answer'. One can be 'right' for the teacher, but wrong for the simple fact that the teacher was wrong. And that was a top-down method that has kept us in bondage for countless years.
I do understand the rage against condescension when it is like that hypothetical teacher thingy described above. Teacher ignorant. Student still unsatisfied and still in the dark. If two people are in the dark, they at least have to mutually admit to each other: in the dark. Blind. 'Maybe you can help me?'
And it is okay, I'm sure you know, to say "blankety blank" (been rebuked by the RS folk for saying what that is . . . though I note, some folk get away with worse . . . what's up with that?).
Yes we can be negative and call forth scathing words and really mock. I think everyone can do that a little, but in terms of another who is the object of this 'little by little' criticism, it will feel like the entire football team is piled up on top. And then, how do you breathe?
So, I think that's where it is justifiable for such to ask: 'Where's the Refs? How come I get called on the carpet, but no one else?'. That's like being, you know, picked on.
Rods
This reminds me of a similar phenomena found in digital video: Rods . Most of these have been explained away as insects or birds, but some are still unexplained.
I had a strange encounter with three orb-like lights in the sky a few years ago, It could have been ball lighting, but they were flying in formation about 15 feet above my car. Circumstances surrounding events like these are usually suspect at best, its almost as if incredulity is part of the equation when it comes to these experiences. Our cultures obsession with Scientific "truth" is just the same as the medieval obsession with religious "truth". The Cult of science need to realize the truth is relative and objectivity is an illusion when there is an observer.
Re: Roger and Gnosus
did I get your question about 'f.ex.' right by taking it as something purely linguistic, or is there a deeper semantic implication in it? In case of the first, it means 'for example' (=e.g.). Sorry if my english sometimes is insufficient, it's only my third language. I could have slipped into my native way of expression.
For the rest of your post, I can only agree. I'm not familiar with Dewey, and as I live in a place, where it's a complicated procedure to get anything more advanced than a few books on quantum physics, I for practical reasons restrict my reading, to what I know is interesting. I would love to be able to 'browse', but such is life in the backwoods.
Your way of presenting the teacher/student situation is almost identical with my own way of considering belief-systems (including also 'scientism'). Belief-systems have a set of assumptions and parameters used for finding 'truth'. The problem is, that no 'truths' can be found outside what the assumptions and parameters allow.
It can be so bad at times, that a belief-system STARTS with the 'truth', and then build up a methodology of assumptions and parameters around it, to 'prove' it. For me this means in practise, that I'm often as critical to 'methods' for finding 'truths', as I am of the 'truths' themselves.
I have often found, that you and I think along very similar lines, but in a somewhat different language. Before I started on my last post, I actually spent an hour to think about the problem, who or maybe what the 'Refs' are. I don't think there are any, maybe never will be. We're on our own in this.
Maybe an answer is to be able to stand strong enough, without safety in numbers or support from 'authorities', beliefsystems etc. With a true inner strength you can skip a lot of unnecessary ballast in life, you otherwise would have to 'defend'. I wouldn't like to be the reciever of personal, emotionally overcharged insults, but on the other hand Richard Merrick gave me some information, which partly toppled one of my favourite ideas. It will mean a few years setback for me, but I would never dream of trying to rationalize my way out of it or argue against Richard.
Gnosus:
If I for a starter am allowed to lump together the group of unexplained and unusual visual phenomena, I can make a parallel to the way UFOs usually are 'explained' by experts, science or certain authorities. What happens in such situations is exactly, what Roger and I have talked about. The 'answer' is already given, before anyone cares to look at the evidence (and mostly the sceptics never bother to take a look), and pre-fabricated 'explanations' are waiting.
Personally I have no doubt, that a lot of such strange observations CAN be ascribed to 'natural' or psychological causes, but what's left, even after the smallest benefit of doubt (helping the sceptics) are cleaned away, ought to recieve serious attention. I remember one case from my youth, where an UFO were visially observed by trained military pilots, and at the same time picked up on two or three independent radarsystems. If my memory serves me right, the speed of the object observed was calculated to be several thousand kilometers an hour. The official explanation was: Wild geese.
Sure. Wild geese flying several thousand kilometers an hour.
At that time anyone believing in such things, or even worse, experiencing them, was one step from the nuthouse, so the public reaction was: Who cares? An attitude still existing, and I doubt, that any amount of evidence will change that in the near future. It's like with religions, which has supernatural beings (angels, demons etc) incorporated in their beliefs. They are only there for symbolic decoration, if anyone actually starts seeing them, s/he's mental case.
bogomil = "dear to god"?
scientifically. It is forgoten that science is not "reality" just one of an infinite number of reality tunnels that the world can be viewed through, its just really good at predicting repeatable phenomena in similar conditions. Science fails when the phenomena described are unrepeatable.
But hopefully not dear to the demiurge
to be honest, I don't know the translated meaning of 'Bogomil'. I use it because it indicates my gnostic leanings, and inside that as a kind of cosmic joke. The Bogomils not only shared the common gnostic purity ideals, but had added 'hard physical work' as something to avoid. Really deep, if you start to think about it, because this denounces the dynamic, never-ending predatory principles of cosmos, as they saw it. The Bogomils made passive resistance to the cosmic principles, so to speak.
Enough digression.
It's positive, that a kind of common base for a discussion on orbs is emerging. A recurrent problem on other threads have been, that whatever subject was the main-theme, the discussion quickly changed into which of the available 'belief-systems' was 'best', and the original subject disappeared in the noise.
I must start by saying, that I'm not in any way an expert on orbs. I may possibly have seen something like it a few times, but not in such a convincing way, that I would trust it to be an 'authentic' orb experience (whatever that is). So consider me an interested theoretician here. But apart from that, I've had so many other unusual experiences in my life, that the whole subject of visual non-normalities isn't something new to me (most without use of any drugs or mindaltering techniques and in a normal day-awake, physical state).
There's one thing, which strikes me as peculiar, when the subject of 'para-normal' experiences turn up. The objects or beings manifesting in such experiences have different physical density from one description to another. They can either be seen, touched, listened to, photographed, picked up on radarscreens or experienced by humans or animals able to percieve in the 'astral' spectrum, but there seem to be no fixed pattern for, which of these qualities will manifest in an experience.
The evidence I'm familiar with doesn't suggest that such changes from 'astral' (low-density) to what humans call 'physical', are made for the benefit of the human observer. Hypothetically this could mean, that the human standard-experience of 'physical reality (matter)' is a kind of narrowed-down abnormality in perception of the cosmic fabric, and that matter is a more flexible phenomenon, than we suspect.
Re
I have noticed the problem of discussions becoming off-topic arguments at this site, its the main reason I haven't registered until today after over a year of lurking. My thought is that mind (belief) shapes reality, and as such each and every belief system begets an equally "true" reality tunnel. Arguing is only a shadow of true discussion and if unchecked it could lead to egoism and worse solipsism.
The easist way I find to duscuss highly charged issues without falling into dogmatism is to break the issue down to it's quintessence: the crux of the issue, the thing in itself. For the issue of orbs and other abnormal events, assuming they are "real", I find my major questions are:
Do they come from an internal source or an external one?
Does the phenomenea issue signs of intelligence or awareness, as many claim? And if so, do they know that we percieve them?
Of course not every one of these events will fit these criteria cleanly but it will make for a decent jumping off point.
It seems to me that the perceptions of the human nervous system are extremely limited based on the vast amount of information signals that are invisible to our senses, and so I agree with bogomil's hypothesis. I think the issue between "astral" and "physical" separation of these occult or para-normal experiences is interesting. Perhaps incongruities in these perceptions are based within the human nervous system trying to interpret signals it is receiving that are alien to it. A synesthesic output from an uninterpretable input is one solution to the strange incongruent way in which these phonemenea appear to the human entity. This of course assumes that the visual orbs come from an external source outside of the human mind. An internal source could be caused by mifiring synapses, subconcious projections, hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, among many other things.
As for the question of a separate awareness, I'd have to be uncertain. My personal experience can support both. If they are both aware and intelligent I'd have to think that they have been living beside us for the entire development of our species (subconcious archetypes or "another tenant in the building"). The rare nature of the appearances makes me think that they are either aware and secretive or just a rare combination of natural phenomena that humans experience sometimes. hope this leads to some good disscussion.
Why do people always have to KNOW everything?
DoAn
Interstitial Artist
www.doanart.blogspot.com
Old story by Japanese writer who's name I forget
A man was visiting a Shinto shrine with some friends, and one of the lions at the entrance was turned to the left, rather than facing forward.
He thought, "This is significant!" So he told his friends, "Look, this lion is pointed to the left!" And he started talking excitedly, about the religious importance of this.
About 10 minutes into it, the Goji (chief shrine caretaker) was walking by.
The man spoke profusely to the Goji, about how amazed he was by the left-pointing lion.
"Oh," the Goji said, "It's those kids. They keep coming over here and turning it left; Pulling pranks. If you see them, be sure to scold them; This lion should be pointing forwards," as he set it right.
I hear voices...
Don Juan said that meeting the eagle was a socially conditioned phenomenon. The transcendent imagery of your experience was more than likely to take on a form of perception that would bear some weight under the scrutiny of the spiritual method most ingrained into your cultural milieu. Casteneda saw beyond his image of Jesus to the truer form of the white light and it was hinted that even this elegance was still not truly as de-structured as it got.
More to the point, why do these experiences take on any form whatsoever? It seems to me that the gradual destruction of any concrete point of reference is a natural progression toward a subliminal appreciation of aperception. Perhaps in the not-to-distant future, the saucers, who have shed their cantankerously spinning shells to become glossy globes or orbs, may make the relocation to the more haute and upmarket communities of speech or mere music.
Whatever the reality underpinning these increasingly ocurrent phenomena, it has us all throwing in our two scents. Every one of us, I'll wager, has had some form of sense-memory activation in their life but I've very rarely read about the other lingering around like some cosmic fart. The significance of the subject must then be about how we react to the input. Who cares if it's dust or saucers, spores or gaian world-symbiotes, our community will soak it on up regardless.
Geometry may be at the heart of what I'm trying to convey. Many supra-liminal experiences may just not be compatible with the wider noosphere or zeitgeist. Our cherished trans-personality may not speak our neighbours language. Whereas spheres are cross cultural. Eternally significant and signified eternally.
Even though I may dream of flute like voices singing songs of fathomless emotional depth, resonating with me on every appreciable level, their song is for naught if I can't get it out of my head and on to paper/screen. The drawing of the circle is very much more succinct and serviceable a meme than any culturally biased notion of even partially concretised interpretation. The entelechy has to bear fruit that is palatable to most, if not all, in order for it to be widely consumed in these emergent cultural cafes.
I'm still holding out for the spectral glossolalia but the current dish has definitely caught my eye.
Phi is not the only fruit.F.ex. and e.g. and 'rods'
For example! Of course. I'm dense.
I think scientific method can be applied to any and all things, but sometimes when applied to one's own consciousness, you are dealing with something that might be called a 'longitudinal' double-blind or experimentation with oneself. We can try on ideas and watch their effects just in ourselves. Then, if it is probative and works, we can share with others what we have done, and they can experiment as we did and watch the results. This is a time-honored method yogis have used for millenia, and most of it is highly secret and carefuly guarded. I can think of several reasons why this might be felt to be necessary, but also think much of it is akin to the ways of guilds in the dark ages wherein it pertained to a profession and protecting 'union membership' profits or restricting the market to just such and such. On the other hand, in this realm, the 'shepherding' of another with whom such are shared might be because of a sense of responsibility and there are many cases of people playing within their own minds without benefit of external checks that go rather mad. And if such can result in impingement on others where 'adeptship' might be misused, there would be a moral fiber issue there. I think there can also be some intimacy issues in this, and sans 'guru' or just going over old territory because of some teacher, the inner consciousness can be experienced or maybe only interpreted as 'jealous', and so people experience things and keep it 'in their heart'. As a kind of treasure.
Could be. I think this day and age we are learning we must put our personal experiences out in the clear sunlight of day, and people just want to level the playing field and get the benefits of sharing. Not only to aid self exploration, but because such can shorten some otherwise painfully long or tortuous experiences or, even, that might be avoided altogether. I'm not a believer in a necessity for individual repitition of pain-as-gain that others had. Unless they want it that way to develop character. Who's gonna stop us? I think in the area of exploration of consciousness and raising our ability to see-what-all is out there or in here: community can eliminate the entire 'teacher- student' paradigm as popularly experienced. Still, I'm sure starting from scratch, learning how to build a chronometer might be a very slow and painful process and maybe highly unlikely just from books. Not impossible. Such has been done. And some highly complex things have been done and no books and no teacher. These kinds of examples fascinate me.
Rods:
I've seen footage that comes from various sources and not just from the collections of Jose Escamilla.
The wiki article on this, suggests these are 'stroboscopic artifacts'. Like maybe a dragon-fly moving by and the image gets 'superposed' on itself linearly in the direction of flight. Like when a bear walking through snow or mud and you see the back paw print immediately in front or behind the front paw print: ends up lookng like a very large human foot print (with claws or very long toe-nails?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(cryptozoology)
A local news show shared a video of a football game somewhere, and it showed one of these 'rods' flying into the head of a player. Not sure anyone went out there on the field later to try and find bug-parts. It would have been interesting.
But the freeze-frame images I've seen seem to discount this as a viable explanation. I've seen pictures from these cameras of a baseball moving at 95 miles an hour, and they don't look like 'tubes' or torpedoes. Maybe a ball moving at 140 miles an hour might or maybe a thousand miles an hour. What bug flies that fast?
This topic reminds me of a story from the "Jurassic Museum" which tells us there are bats in South America that can fly through solid matter. The most immediate red flag to this story is the claim that scientists built a wall of solid lead that was some 12 feet high or something and very long . . . don't recall how long.
And that something impacted this wall and they conclude it was this bat which rematerialized inside this lead wall. And how did they determine this? They used x-ray machine to see this bat frozen inside. Isn't lead impervious to x-ray?
But rods are an open question for me. Should be possible to see them with ordinary, high speed motion-picture cameras, if they really exist. We'd have to ask hollywood or someone with the famous 'spotter camera' used in Nam I'm told. <
Re: doan and R.Sct
doan: It seems to me that knowing the "truth" to a question is reassuring to many people. The unknown can be a frightening thing, our western culture is greatly influenced by Aristotelian logic which has shaped our intrinsic need for a Black and White answer with no Grey area. I feel that a quantum universe thrives on Grey area.
R.Sctt: your post was very thought provoking for me. I've always felt that at its best the Internet could be the daguerreotype of telepathy: an almost instant sharing of ideas. Your ideas about community over throwing the traditional style of "adeptship", is very farseeing. I'm aware of some of this exchange going on, but the concept is far from being realized to its full potential. perhaps we could start a forum board here for this type of groupwork?