Thanks for the extensive and thoughtful reply Shadowofmind.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
YAD,
Here are a couple of comments after looking at your article. These aren't to disagree with anything you said, just some additional thoughts that might be relevant.
For me, deja vu seems to be a recognition of the present moment from a standpoint that is recognizably 'outside of' the present moment. I think that for me there's no difference between this and a dream premonition, except for the moment that the awareness contacts my physical experience. (If we had a vocabulary that was even half adequate for describing these things, that would go a long way towards understanding them I think.) A person can also have the same kind of experience in relation to a 'past' event. In the latter case you could say to yourself that its just a memory, but actually the experience is the same, the transcendent element is the same. Good luck convincing a skeptic of any of this of course.
Skeptisism is in itself a belief-system, and depending on the skeptic they often come from a well defined ideology of skeptisism thus cite from known websites which are all fundamentally argument driven beliefs that skeptics maintain to hold their position that what they belief, or the belief is skeptisism is the correct one. Fortunantly, they are wrong with regards to dreams that come true amonst other things (out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, reincarnation etc). Which is actually good news, that we survive death. But people wanna skeptic.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
My precognitive dreams are often in first person, from a standpoint other than my physical self. In these dreams I can seem to have an active role in causing the event. I don't think it follows that I'm actually causing a future event though. Something else is causing it, and I'm involuntarily empathizing with that something else. Or to say this another way, providence or my higher self wants to show me that there is a causal relationship between two things, and illustrates this by causing me to experience that link, but even though its in first person I'm still mostly a witness. Even in waking life, when a person imagines "I am doing this", a huge part of that real-time agency is imagined, the decision having already been made subconsciously. (As has been confirmed by brain scans.) I don't think that the choice itself is necessarily illusory, but the experience of it has been transferred from where it really happens to a sort of executive summary or simulation of what happened.
The first-person is generally how most experience it. I've observed causality in precognitive dreams by changing them, it is something to concider. In other precognitive dreams I've been shown how we manufacture and create this reality, and that this reality is a subject of the dreamworld, thus in itself a scaled up Universal dream.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
My point isn't to suggest that you do or do not affect future events by acting lucidly in a dream. I don't know that because I'm not you and haven't had your experiences. I'm just saying that for myself, the experience of causing something in a precognitive lucid dream seems not to imply that I'm really doing that. Sometimes things happen that I don't think I can plausibly be responsible for, irrespective of what first-person role I was playing in the dream experience. I'm not that powerful, karmically I can't be determining the fates of other people on a momentary whim like that.
The active lucid precognitive dreams that I had, I went over and above the usual going with the flow. I will admit that, however in taking direct action it changed the dream largely in a phenomenological way. When the dream came true as it was precognitive the changes also actualized in a phenomenological way. For the most part, this was a learning experience and revealed in stone the relationship between dreams and reality from my point-of-view anyways.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Perhaps I should start another thread for this, but I think it might be worth revisiting whether convincing respectable 'society' of the reality of precognition would even be a good thing. What is science? Its when you control something, or something you can rigorously observe behaves in a well controlled manner, and by doing that you come up with some kind of model or description of how it behaves. Do the spirits want to be nailed down in that manner?
I'm working on a new abstract once finalized I will link it here, I do believe this is an issue for science should it ever get past the skeptisism and understand the fact that this is quite genuine and real. I cannot convince others however but that doesn't stop other like minded thinkers to raise conjecture on the topic, all good in my opinion at this stage in human history.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
A lot of what we've been talking about amounts to a form telepathy. If you didn't have telepathy, and wanted to come up with a mechanically and electromagnetically based substitute, that would be the internet. Its great! In a moment you can go out and get information about practically anything, and communicate with practically anyone. So what have we done with that? In just 20 years we've turned it into something Orwellian, where powerful corporations buy and sell information about you that you don't even have access to yourself, and where powerful government agencies keep track of everyone's activities. The ugly, genocidal side of this hasn't taken clear form yet, but as sure as cats chase mice its coming, in one form or another. Do we need the same kind of control freaks more involved in psychism also?
They already know and already do involve themselves. Look at Hitler and the occult, China's super-psychics, Russia's psychic research and the US. What they excell at is covering it up and creating dis-information and propaganda against the existence of psychic phenomena. This is why I view most skeptisism as a branch of the dis-information campaign.
 Originally Posted by shadowofwind
Perhaps we must try to understand psychism, because its a part of who we are. But is it a bad thing that we can't convince the kinds of people who believe only what is scientifically accepted? To a large extent peer review and all of that is about control. Do we want their control? Part of the point of 'proving' things to a scientific community is to protect ourselves from superstition, and from religious people who would use superstition to control other people. But I wonder how much this is like looking to the NSA to protect us from terrorists. Maybe if we were wiser we wouldn't try so hard. Maybe this is a big part of of why publicly proving this sort of thing is so elusive, even though we know its real. The 'paranormal' part of my mind acts with a high degree of independence. If it wanted to be known outwardly by others, it would make itself known, it can do that any time it wants, if other people are open to it also. The fact that it hasn't happened yet seems to me to be evidence that its not wanted by other people, or that providence knows better. Maybe we should heed that.
I'm not saying that I think we shouldn't push to understand this stuff. I don't know. I expressed this same thought two years ago, and yet I've still been keeping at trying to understand this stuff. But when we encounter resistance, maybe we should try to understand that too, lest we push to hard and hurt ourselves with it.
Because it's privately known in the upper echeleons of government and hidden from view to the general public, I feel even more strongly that we need to push at a grassroots level knowledge of the expeirnece as we are not alone, many poeple have it and for them, they deserve to have quality information on the topic. That's my opinion anyways.
Thanks 
Ian
|
|
Bookmarks