Author Topic: How to NOT Practice Psi  (Read 34733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 26, 2006, 01:34:41 AM
Read 34733 times

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4985
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
How to NOT Practice Psi


I would like to address a number of serious missteps that I have seen taken by a significant portion of psi practitioners.  These comments are not intended to ridicule any practitioners, and they are not intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable or inadequate.  I do however believe that they need to be explicitly discussed so that we become more aware of the problems with these approaches.  It is my hope that with sufficient awareness, these problematic approaches will move out of prominence.


Aiming for Feelings

I recently read an article on another prominent site, which detailed the following instructions for making a psiball (simplified in my own wording):

1.  Trace a pattern on the palm of your hand using your other finger, and remember the physical sensation.
2.  Attempt to feel the physical sensation again without touching your hand.
3.  Put your hands near each other and attempt to feel a physical sensation in the palms of your hands.
4.  If you succeed, this is a psiball???

This is not just an ineffective technique, but a dangerously counterproductive training technique which could serve to set back your progress in psi.  It is however a representative example of a more general error.

In the above technique, the practitioner is encouraged to emulate a physical sensation in the brain.  In other words, the practitioner is encouraged to create a sensation which has no cause.  In essence, this technique teaches the practitioner to actively induce analytical overlay, and then mislabel this analytical overlay as "psi".

The goal when learning psi should never be to simulate a physical sensation.  This is most likely to teach you little more than how to simulate physical sensations within the brain through ordinary and classical means.


The Use of Hands

It is most unfortunate that many articles purporting to teach kinesis do so by encouraging the reader to put his or her hands next to the kinesis target.  This is particularly pervasive among articles which instruct people to use a psiwheel, is also present in articles on kinetting a straw, and I even noticed it recently (and astonishingly) in an article on kinetting a flame.  In all three of these cases, and indeed in nearly every other case, this an extremely counterproductive approach.

First it needs to be emphasized that in no way, shape, or form, does psi require or utilize the hands in the performance of kinesis.  Yet there exist countless articles proposing this as a primary training technique.  The problem arises due to the fact that every one of the above mentioned targets will sometimes move through entirely ordinary and classical means simply from the physical presence of a hand.  This results in a large number of false positives, where the practitioner comes to believe kinesis has been successfully performed because motion was observed, when in actuality none has occurred.

This causes a number of practitioners to erroneously believe that the mental rituals they perform while observing this motion are functional approaches to kinesis.  Then when they attempt to use these technique on other targets, or when their hands are a significant distance away from the targets, they find that they can no longer get their abilities to "work".  The unfortunate truth is that a number of these people have failed to properly develop control over their ability in the first place, because they trained with a misleading technique.

So in summary, never ever use your hands.  Psi works equally well across any distance, so use this to your advantage and sit far enough away from your target that the feedback you receive during your kinesis practice is accurate.


Suggestive Scanning

The drive is often there among practitioners to confirm their abilities with feedback from others.  Unfortunately, this is sometimes done in very wrong ways.  One approach which has become prominent is the method of suggestive scanning.  This method is usually undertaken innocently, and often yields erroneous results.  The dialog often goes something like this:

(Alice) I've been working on psiballs, but I'm not sure if I got it working right.  Can someone scan in front of me and see?
(Bob) Sure, I will.
(Alice) Thanks, Bob.
(Bob) Hmm, it seems you do have a psiball in front of you, but it's a little weak.  Try to put more energy in it.
(Alice) Will do, thanks.

Another unfortunately common example goes like the following:

(Alice) I don't feel so well.  Can someone scan me to see if there are any connections to me?
(Bob) Yeah, I can try.
(Alice) Thanks, Bob.
(Bob) Hmm.  I see a few entities attached to you that seem to be draining your energy.
(Alice) Yeah, I thought it was something like that.  I just wanted to check.

In both examples, both Alice and Bob have good intentions, but because of the way they are interacting they are actively leading each other astray.  The problem begins because Alice's initial comments are strongly suggestive of the desired or expected answer.  Even though Bob's intention is to be entirely honest, Bob's subconscious is automatically primed with those suggestions to yield the expected answer as analytical overlay.  This gives a high probability to "break" Bob's ability to scan, and he must engage in significant steps to attempt to overcome this analytical overlay.

Unfortunately, this form of suggestive scanning is often used by people to "confirm" the accuracy of their own sensing abilities, or to "confirm" the validity of their own construct creation abilities.  This yields so many false positives, that practitioners using this approach will build up a false confidence in an internal method they are using which is not actually valid.  Then when the practitioner attempts to use psi for practical purposes, the abilities which he or she thought were mastered are suddenly found to be ineffective.

It can take some time to unlearn approaches to psi which have become habitual due to false feedback received in this manner, so it is strongly recommended that suggestive scanning should never be used for feedback.  If you solicit confirmation via scanning, it should always be from someone who has no idea and has received no hint (no matter how subtle) regarding what you expect to be there.  This is a minimal requirement which should always be met when considering a scanning result for feedback purposes.


So How SHOULD You Practice Psi?

There are many legitimate ways to practice psi and advance to competent skill levels.  But there is one aspect which should be central to any psion's practice schedule:  Accurate feedback through objective external means.

Feedback is the golden key which allows you to adjust and improve the internal aspects of your technique, which in turn improves your accuracy and control.  Since feedback is central to improvement in practice, the accuracy of this feedback is central to making sure the changes you make are in the direction of improvement.  The best way to make sure feedback is accurate is to make sure it is objective (either a result is correct or incorrect, and it is clearly observable whether this is the case), and to make sure that the feedback is external.

There are times in the performance of psi when you must proceed forward with only your own scanning ability as internal feedback to guide you, but it is important that you continually tune and improve this scanning ability by using external feedback from sources outside of yourself which are not subject to your own expectations.  This is the means by which you can establish and maintain legitimate confidence in the use of your own scanning ability during the performance of psi.

So remember, avoid techniques and behaviors which are potentially plagued with false positives, and instead fill your practice schedule with techniques which yield accurate feedback through objective external means.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 26, 2006, 05:49:36 AM
Reply #1

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
I'd like to add some things with reguards to the "scanning" aspect.
Such mistakes I feel are the most common, and relate to all forms of psychic discipline.  People create false expectations, or lead others into doing the same, be it unintentional or purposfully.
In my experience, be it with a client or friend, I make sure the third party is aware that divulging personal details without request will break the "connection".  As an example, I might get asked "Is my boyfriend cheating on me?"  Naturally, this statement opens the door to cold reading and simple deduction -- by virtue of the expectation, one can say that person already HAS reasons for their suspicion, further both parties will engage in an emotionally driven session based on those expectations.
When you wish to practise telepathy, or what have you, the other person should be blind to what you really expect.  You and your partner should be somewhat general with your requests.  More productive lines of asking would would be, "Tell me what you see with reguards to my [relationship]..." or whichever the desired target may be.  Playing "shapes and colors" should be "playing guess what I have in mind."
Psychic abilities are profound, and have profound effects.  Both parties must realize that the objective should not be limited by linear parameters -- keep the lines of unerstanding opened and honest.  If you do not see/feel something that seems to fit, then do not force it into your own idea of what that should be, but work to assert its nature: imagined or psychic.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

July 29, 2006, 07:34:47 AM
Reply #2

peebrain

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
The technique comes from Robert Bruce, as I mentioned in the article.  Have you actually tried it?  It works pretty good.  Tactile methods are pretty popular... it's not like I was posting any huge new idea for people to try out.  This is a run-of-the-mill technique.

Is it possible that people fake the sensation?  Yes, absolutely.  Which is why I linked to my article on how to verify your psi ball at the end of the article.  Can you give me a psi ball technique that doesn't have room for analytical overlay?  No - because the fact that you are already telling me the technique is for making a psi ball will frontload me.

It's just a beginner article.  If that's the only thing you can find on PsiPog that you disagree with, then I consider that pretty good out of the 80+ articles we have on the site.

EDIT: I can't find any psi ball articles on this site (except for Skywind's).  Do you have a link to the technique you use?

~Sean
« Last Edit: July 29, 2006, 08:00:04 AM by peebrain »

July 29, 2006, 09:40:16 AM
Reply #3

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Robert Bruce admittedly has no educational background in energy work -- he says he made up everything, as he goes along.  His exact words were "I have no education in [enegy work].  I figured it out for myself."  Which brings into question his understanding of things like analytical overlay and psychosomatic effects.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

July 29, 2006, 10:36:26 AM
Reply #4

kakkarot

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • 0. The Fool... Inverted?

  • 2701
  • Karma:
    3
  • Personal Text
    Pirate "Not-A-Mod" BoB
    • View Profile
(edit galore!)
"making stuff up" and "figuring stuff out" are two different things. don't mix them.

I never had formal education in qi gong for the first about five years that i practiced it, yet i consistently achieved greater repeatable results than most people here have claimed during their practices. book learning don't amount to shit compared to actual daily practices. in fact, now that i've been doing a ton of reading for the past almost five years my achievements have waned considerably, my capabilities have dropped substantially, and my experiences are much more infrequent than the daily they used to be. so what "education", exactly, should mr bruce, or anyone, have before they're "allowed" to teach others how to feel and use energy?

(for the record, this was written after our discussion in the chat. shadowarrior finally quoted for me stuff from bruce's book which is dangerous, but that weren't energy work. it was ritual work. like fumigating a room with sulphur. that's hardly energy work, so the lack of education in energy work here can hardly be blamed as it's a lacking of education in chemistry that's proving dangerous.)

also for the record, while the tactile thing is useful for helping people become more introspective (not introverted), i do believe it's a mere beginner technique and should be dropped quickly in one's studies in favour of better things. and external results are always better than internal ones, since external ones give real proof whereas internal ones give mere beliefs. *wonders if i'm done with the disclaimers or if someone's gonna flame me anyway*

~kakkarot

PS and to quick-reply to peebs, "we don't do energy balls here anymore". ^_^

Last edit, I swear: after seeing a bunch of stuff shadowarrior talked about from bruce's psychic self-defense book, i will finally agree that he's not a great source for information. *stabs solstice* but that don't mean i like you :P
« Last Edit: July 29, 2006, 10:55:39 AM by kakkarot »
Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

July 29, 2006, 10:43:19 AM
Reply #5

XIII

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Ḥ̵̲̗̫͈̩͕̐̓͆o͔͚̣͎͚͜ř̶ͦ͒̈̐͂r͍̱ȏ͉̟̱̬̥̩ͤ̎r̮ͨ̽ͫ ̊ͭ

  • 1161
  • Karma:
    10
    • View Profile
The only thing that using physical feelings in accordance with energy does is create an unnecessary system of biofeedback in replacement of actual energy work. There are, not arguably, better methods.
<@kobok> And if you push hard enough, you can shove quite a lot into a chicken.

<@Trowa> When someone told him to jump off a cliff, he argued the semantic meanings of "jump" and "cliff", and then proceeded to do just that.

July 29, 2006, 11:34:37 AM
Reply #6

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4985
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
The technique comes from Robert Bruce, as I mentioned in the article.  Have you actually tried it?  It works pretty good.

I don't care much who the idea came from, it's a terrible idea on its own merits.  Performed literally, it results in the emulation of a physical sensation, but not in energy work.

Tactile methods are pretty popular... it's not like I was posting any huge new idea for people to try out.  This is a run-of-the-mill technique.

I've noticed they have grown popular recently.  That's why I have posted an article against such methods.

People have been describing energy as a "feeling" for quite some time without properly defining what they mean by "feeling", but when this is misinterpreted as "skin sensation == psi" and then taught to beginning students, a lot of mass confusion and misunderstanding will result.

Is it possible that people fake the sensation?  Yes, absolutely.  Which is why I linked to my article on how to verify your psi ball at the end of the article.  Can you give me a psi ball technique that doesn't have room for analytical overlay? ...  EDIT: I can't find any psi ball articles on this site (except for Skywind's).  Do you have a link to the technique you use?

The Skywind technique for psiballs is not a flawless technique, and many people who have attempted it have encountered analytical overlay as a result.  But the Skywind technique has a significant benefit in that the description focuses explicitly on the energetic process of forming a psiball, after an admittedly brief introduction to energy manipulation.  The psiball method critiqued above in the article, however, is enormously counterproductive.  It emphasizes the pretending or emulation of a physical sensation AS the process, and so the most likely result in this case is that the student will achieve what he or she was working on, which is the pretending or emulation of a physical sensation.  This is not energy manipulation.

I also teach a technique for forming psiballs, but curently it is only located within the psi course as it requires material to be studied in sequence.  Like Skywind it focuses on the energetic process for forming a psiball, but in contrast, it is not brought up until around the 11th lesson, by which point the students have already become quite familiar with the process of controlling psi.  That way the energetic process can be described in explicit detail, and the psiball can be formed using known and verified techniques and skills.  This is the type of process I refer to in the above article when I mention that sometimes internal feedback must be used temporarilly, but it should be done using skills that have been verified with external feedback.

We all need to start adapting our teaching techniques to new orderings and methods like this, so we can reap the benefits of genuine base skills developed with feedback.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 29, 2006, 08:47:38 PM
Reply #7

peebrain

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
I don't care much who the idea came from, it's a terrible idea on its own merits.  Performed literally, it results in the emulation of a physical sensation, but not in energy work.

Have you tried it?  Also, I think it does matter where the technique comes from... I don't agree with everything Robert Bruce believes, but the fact that he has published books on the subject of energy manipulation should be a good indication that he might have some idea of what he's talking about.

Also, if you want to attack the technique - realize that you are attacking Robert Bruce.  Not me, and not PsiPog (other than the fact I personally think the technique works... because I've used it).  However, your article seems to be directly aimed at attacking my article.  What's the real issue here?  You don't like PsiPog for some reason?

People have been describing energy as a "feeling" for quite some time without properly defining what they mean by "feeling", but when this is misinterpreted as "skin sensation == psi" and then taught to beginning students, a lot of mass confusion and misunderstanding will result.

Certainly not on PsiPog... where we are constantly preaching healthy skpeticism.  We openly teach in multiple places that people need to confirm what they experience with an external source.  That falls under the umbrella of "healthy skepticism", which is an identifying trait of PsiPog.  Which is exactly why I linked to the "How to Measure/Verify Your Skills" article at the end of the psi ball article.

The psiball method critiqued above in the article, however, is enormously counterproductive.  It emphasizes the pretending or emulation of a physical sensation AS the process, and so the most likely result in this case is that the student will achieve what he or she was working on, which is the pretending or emulation of a physical sensation.  This is not energy manipulation.

Pretending to feel a physical sensation is not energy manipulation... I agree.  Again - which is why we emphasize healthy skepticism.  ANY psi ball technique could potentially be practiced in a way to produce false results...  So it's not like all of the sudden, this tactile method is a terrible idea that always produces false results (which is how you make it sound).  It has the potential to produce false results (just like any technique)... Which is why we emphasize healthy skepticism on PsiPog.

*shrugs*

You could literally pick any article on psionics, on any website, and disagree with it and post a counter-article about why something in it is wrong.  Psionics is a very large field of highly debatable and subjective ideas... to pretend that you have some ultimate answer and training method is just silly.  My question is why you would specifically choose one of the newest articles on PsiPog to attack?  It's a popular technique, that produces results, and is easy for beginners to get started with.  It's documented by Robert Bruce, who even though some of you might disagree with him, at the very least you have to admit he has achieved a high level of success in the field of teaching people about energy manipulation.  PsiPog is known for it's stance on healthy skepticism, and it's something we constantly pound into our visitors' heads - and my new psi ball article links directly to another article I wrote on how to confirm you've made a psi ball.  So what exactly are you complaining about?  We aren't skeptic enough?  The technique isn't popular enough?  The order in which we teach things isn't structured enough?

What is the real issue here?  Honestly, this looks like you just randomly grabbed one of the new articles, and decided to label it as "wrong".  Then you create a few reasons on why this article should be labelled as wrong, and you can pass off your ideas because psionics is such a highly debatable field to begin with.  You don't have all the answers... and neither do I.  No one has psionics figured out - including me, you, and even Robert Bruce.  I'm glad you think your personal training methods are wonderful - perhaps they are, I don't know, I guess I don't have accesss to them.  Just because your methods work doesn't mean everything else is therefore wrong.

~Sean

July 29, 2006, 09:04:00 PM
Reply #8

_glyph

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 1
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
im certain kakarrot meant fabrication(as in hoax/false) when stating "make things up", and the more obvious "figured out" refers to development without prior knowledge. everyone knows thats every form of knowledge be it spiritual or conceptual started by exploring the unknown. [edit] i swear somone countered against kakorrot??

im sorry my first post has to be of this nature, and i hope to clear my name in the future...but

i have some issues with your article. i truly appreciate your and others efforts to save those from a path of failure(the reason i keep comin back to this site, been lurking for about few months).  Robert Bruce's and peebrain rendition toward psballs is clearly for those without sight or knowledge, it still has some clarity that it offers. it instills belief into the practitioner, with practice that belief will be replaced by knowledge, and so forth. i know im preaching to the choir, but doubt deffies all effort.

personally i prefer useing hands to perform techniques. now i know that the hands themselve do not asssist my progress,but(i choose)its part of a process that is subconscious reinforcment.

as for scanning eh... dont care for it and make every attempt to prevent being scanned
"there can be only one"

joking aside.....when people start defining do's and dont's the real reason we practice(truth) becomes choked and sometimes lost.

-------glyph--------
« Last Edit: July 29, 2006, 09:29:05 PM by _glyph »

July 29, 2006, 10:41:27 PM
Reply #9

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4985
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
Performed literally, it results in the emulation of a physical sensation, but not in energy work.

Have you tried it?

Yes I have.  Performed literally, it results in the emulation of a physical sensation.

Also, I think it does matter where the technique comes from... I don't agree with everything Robert Bruce believes, but the fact that he has published books on the subject of energy manipulation should be a good indication that he might have some idea of what he's talking about.

Also, if you want to attack the technique - realize that you are attacking Robert Bruce.

I've spoken with Robert Bruce before.  I enjoyed discussing with him, and he seemed like a nice guy with some interesting spiritual insights, but he's no oracle of omniscience.  I do not have any qualms about criticizing a method he supports.

Not me, and not PsiPog (other than the fact I personally think the technique works... because I've used it).  However, your article seems to be directly aimed at attacking my article.  What's the real issue here?  You don't like PsiPog for some reason?

I didn't mention you or psipog by name in the above article, because what I'm critiquing is the method.  And as I said at the very beginning, "These comments are not intended to ridicule any practitioners, and they are not intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable or inadequate."  So no, my intentions are not personal.  My point is simply that we as a global community need to start using better methods.

Certainly not on PsiPog... where we are constantly preaching healthy skpeticism.  We openly teach in multiple places that people need to confirm what they experience with an external source.  That falls under the umbrella of "healthy skepticism", which is an identifying trait of PsiPog.  Which is exactly why I linked to the "How to Measure/Verify Your Skills" article at the end of the psi ball article.

In principle, yes, you did link to "How to Measure/Verify Your Skills".  But if we look carefully at the methods proposed in there for measuring and verifying skills, there are some problems.  The first method you propose for people to use for verification is exactly like the suggestive scanning I was talking about.  (The "Ask someone else if they can feel it" method.)  This is quite likely to yield the same false feedback problem as the initial technique.  The second method of sending shapes and textures is much more reasonable.  This can serve as a good example of objective external feedback.

Pretending to feel a physical sensation is not energy manipulation... I agree.  Again - which is why we emphasize healthy skepticism.  ANY psi ball technique could potentially be practiced in a way to produce false results...  So it's not like all of the sudden, this tactile method is a terrible idea that always produces false results (which is how you make it sound).

Actually, yes, I would say this method is significantly worse than others.  This method EXPLICITLY trains people to produce a false physical sensation.  The exact quote is, "An easy exercise to try is to first spiral your right pointer finger on the palm of your left hand. Memorize that feeling. Next try to make that same feeling happen while not using your pointer finger."  Surely you can't tell me that you think this is energy work.  This is just the brain imagining a sensation.

Quote from: _glyph
it instills belief into the practitioner, with practice that belief will be replaced by knowledge, and so forth. i know im preaching to the choir, but doubt deffies all effort.

I certainly appreciate the temporary contribution to confidence that false feedback can yield, but unfortunately, this confidence tends to be somewhat transitory when the feedback is false.  Ultimately a psion needs to learn to intentionally control his or her own expectations and confidence.  I consider this so essential to psi that I think practice of this should always precede things like the practice of psiballs.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2006, 10:52:17 PM by kobok »
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 30, 2006, 05:08:33 AM
Reply #10

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Did someone delete my responce?  Kakkarot, I did reply to you, but I no longer see it.

In summery:
If I taught myself to drive a car, does this not mean that I made up the instructions?

Quote
Also, if you want to attack the technique - realize that you are attacking Robert Bruce.  Not me, and not PsiPog (other than the fact I personally think the technique works... because I've used it).  However, your article seems to be directly aimed at attacking my article.  What's the real issue here?  You don't like PsiPog for some reason?
If you had not mentioned it, some of us would never have know from whom or where the present example was derrived.
Since you admit to being aware that Mr. Bruce has flaws, then would it be wise to base something so intristic on his wrecklessness?

« Last Edit: July 30, 2006, 05:13:22 AM by solstice »
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

July 30, 2006, 06:45:57 AM
Reply #11

peebrain

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
I've spoken with Robert Bruce before.  I enjoyed discussing with him, and he seemed like a nice guy with some interesting spiritual insights, but he's no oracle of omniscience.

Where did I say he was an "oracle of omniscience"?  Please, read what I said.  And since when do you need to be an "oracle of omniscience" to create a useful technique?

The first method you propose for people to use for verification is exactly like the suggestive scanning I was talking about.  (The "Ask someone else if they can feel it" method.)  This is quite likely to yield the same false feedback problem as the initial technique.

I notice you have a hard time understanding how extreme something is.  If a technique COULD produce false results, you proclaim that is DOES produce false results.  If a logical check COULD produce false feedback, then you proclaim it is "quite likely" to produce false feedback.  Robert Bruce might have some insight, but he isn't an "oracle of science".  Why are you so intent on speaking of such extremes?  Techniques don't need to be perfectly orchestrated training systems to produce results.  People don't need air tight scientific protocols for verifying their skills for themselves.  People don't need to be oracles of science to create something useful.

Actually, yes, I would say this method is significantly worse than others.  This method EXPLICITLY trains people to produce a false physical sensation.  The exact quote is, "An easy exercise to try is to first spiral your right pointer finger on the palm of your left hand. Memorize that feeling. Next try to make that same feeling happen while not using your pointer finger."  Surely you can't tell me that you think this is energy work.  This is just the brain imagining a sensation.

Taking one quote out of context and isolating it all on it's own, then it might produce false results.  But that's why there is an entire article and website backing it up.

This entire argument is just silly... I can take a quote out of any psionic article and ridicule it.  For example, Skywind writes: "Picture the energy flowing from your body, through your arms, and out through your hands."  Well picturing energy is a good way to induce false sensations in the body... so her technique must always produce false results.  Do you see how silly that sounds?

Quote from: solstice
Since you admit to being aware that Mr. Bruce has flaws, then would it be wise to base something so intristic on his wrecklessness?

Yes, Robert Bruce has flaws.  Every human has flaws.  Can you point me in the direction of the orcale of science who lurks on these forums that is without any flaws?  For some reason you guys seem to think someone must have these traits to have useful ideas about energy manipulation.

~Sean

July 30, 2006, 08:21:19 AM
Reply #12

Prophecy

  • Teacher Emeritus
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Theurgist

  • 1237
  • Karma:
    79
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Teacher
    • View Profile
There's no need for any of this to be taken personally, and most certainly none of it was written as an attack against any site or author.  I thoroughly enjoy PsiPog, for one, and I thought Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce was an interesting read.  What Kobok is focusing on are particular techniques that have a definate potential to produce false results; this does not mean that 10 out of 10 times they most certainly will.  What Kobok is advocating is a desired shift from relying on such things as sensory hallucination to using other mechanisms to confirm your progress. which is certainly not a bad idea.  On the other hand, using a training of the senses to produce a desired result is not of itself a particularly bad approach either; in Kobok's view it is simply not a desirable one.

As a thought however, the belief that the ability of a man to produce some quantity of written pages, and then via a publishing company have those pages bound together and released as a coherent book, is an intrinsically false one.  I could sit down right now and release two, maybe even three books regarding why the Earth is in fact the center of the universe, and the Sun is only a patch of gas being reflected from Venus and magnified by our atmosphere; unfortunately, absolutely none of it would be correct.  Regardless, I'm sure in a matter of time I would amass a few followers in this belief.  Like Kobok, I've spoken to Robert Bruce on a few occasions.  He is a nice guy, and he certainly understands how to Astral Project, but I pray that his understanding of psionics is better than his understanding of hermetic science; something particularly alarming, as when I talked to him he was entertaining the idea of opening a hermetic lodge. 

July 30, 2006, 09:04:26 AM
Reply #13

peebrain

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
As a thought however, the belief that the ability of a man to produce some quantity of written pages, and then via a publishing company have those pages bound together and released as a coherent book, is an intrinsically false one.

I agree that publishing something doesn't automatically make you an expert, or anything like that.  But if I had to choose between a guy on the internet with a website (i.e., me), or a guy that claims to have 30 years experience and a few published books on the subject (i.e., Robert Bruce), then I would be more inclined to be drawn towards the published person.  I'm not saying it's a rule that all published authors are 100% trustworthy (as I stated before, there are things that I disagree with Bruce about), I'm just saying it's a pretty good indication that he might have SOME clue to what he's talking about.

Anyways.  There isn't much more I can say without being redundant.  If Kobok has some great techniques, I would like to see them posted publically, but if not oh well.  See ya.

~Sean

July 30, 2006, 10:39:08 AM
Reply #14

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Why would you be more inclied, if you agree that publication does not denote expertise?  Someone on the Inernet (like you) can make the exact same claims.
And no, I do not really care about whether or not He is an oracle, but in general, when I see a pattern of wrecklessness, then I am inclided to think that person is not a relyable source.

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory