Queries

[han]

Well, it seems you are looking for easy answers, and you aren't satisfied, because there are none.

You want definitions of concepts, but, because definitions tend to define/limit, we try to let concepts as open as possible. Therefore, all the theological and philosophical structures you have in mind are inapplicable.

Why do you need statistics to understand stuff? Did you need statistics to learn how to type? The only way towards understanding this reality is through hard work. That means work by reading, thinking, and moving towards Being, to sum up some possibilities.

Do you know the proverb: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"? It applies to the questions you keep asking...


The funny thing is; the reason that we urge you to read all this material, is to avoid "belief-systems" or anything like that. This material contains research, facts, inspiration, critical thinking, and a lot of humor, condensed into a readable format. When we would begin to "define" anything of this, it would lose a lot of it's "meaning" and you would be further from understanding than you were when you started asking questions. When you have read it, it would be a lot easier to discuss it. Isn't that logical? ;)

Wat did you mean, by the way, when you said "there seems no validity in any of the research"? Did you know that the works of Laura integrate some thousands of books she has read? Did you know we have "the internet" at our disposal as a "validation method"? You seem to say there is no way to "validate" anything! Maybe you should redefine "validation"...

When you say "most deductive philosophy makes 100% sense," you seem to say 1 + 2 = 5. Well, that makes sense.

 

[Ben]

As for the validity, if there is no statistical validity then it is fine to believe, but I would find it very hard to justify anything if I didn't at least have something to refer too, that I could say in a quick amount of time to people so they could appreciate the logic of my argument. There doesn't seem to be any logic in all of this though either, it seems to be assumptions driven by assumptions with nothing actually ever confirmed.

To add to what people have already suggested, it is through your own investigation of this work that you are able to determine the validity of same, not impressions which you may have received from a particular piece or series of writings. There is a very logical presentation of these ideas and the terms which they have neccesitated in the form of the Wave Series, for example, and it was this which I needed to read before I could come to any conclusions.

Your ideas about beliefs reveal that even the basic nature of this Work is probably unfamiliar to you, as you are 'preaching to the choir' in many respects.

 

[vampire_f00d]

Yet all you are doing is regurgitating the same answer over and over again. Why can you not give me any reason that any of this work has any validity or logical argument to it at all, when all I have read has none?

You can't express to me in anything far short of degree level scientific jargon, the main purposes and ideas of your beliefs, which you consider people will automatically know. At the current time I don't need to read anymore to see that the argument currently made is completely illogical and invalid, and you are not even prepared to try and show me how this can be so except with the constant regurgitation of "read more".

I have read some very complex and confusing philosophy largely because of the time periods it was written in, but that is usually the only problem I ever encounter when reading philosophical material. You are living in the same period of time as me, yet write in such complicated terms, that you don't even bother to define in your text, that you expect people to understand and be happy to read it through like a shot, i'm not prepared to do this until I can be given a decent reason as to why that should be.

In order to get people to read and understand your belief's you have to make it firstly accessible to them, and also be prepared to justify your beliefs to them as a reason as to why they should read them.

If you took any number of religions they would refer you to simple passages in their texts, when you get this with your beliefs however you are confronted with degree level terms which are hard enough to understand for even a decently educated person, which is why you are now having someone ask you your beliefs and a justification of them, as you make the material so inaccessible in the first place.

So can you actually offer any logically valid argument to show me why I should have any patience at all to read more?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Because we aren't trying to convince you of anything. I don't even care if you do the reading or not.

Yet all you are doing is regurgitating the same answer over and over again. Why can you not give me any reason that any of this work has any validity or logical argument to it at all, when all I have read has none?

...
So can you actually offer any logically valid argument to show me why I should have any patience at all to read more?

 

[vampire_f00d]

So you are trying to enlighten people, but not even caring if you bother to enlighten anyone?

Btw Han you do not seem to understand what deductive philosophy is, correct deductive philosophy is never invalid. And you seem to all basically be saying "do the reading and validate it yourself, we don't care".

How can you claim to be a group that want to further the evolution of humanity and the like, if you aren't even bothering to answer questions people put to you? Tis a very pompous notion. I don't need statistics to understand stuff, I need some sort of at least logical argument to show that it makes SENSE, otherwise what is the point in reading a mas of information to find out at the end it makes no sense.

Discussion does make things yes, but you can describe many very complex philosophical concepts without having to read the entire books each author wrote, if a concept is good, strong and true it will not need a mountain of jargon behind it, but will be able to be simplified into a short easy paragraph. If it can't then chances are it is not a very good argument.

 

[Mr. Premise]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Several people have made efforts to answer your questions as well as point you in the direction of further answers and you don't seem to want to do anymore work. The responsibility for furthering your evolution lies with you alone and not the rest of us. The same goes for me. I don't have the right to ask other people to further my evolution if I don't put in all the effort I can to help.

This material is not simple or easy and you want us to predigest it for you. Again several of us have tried to do just that, but it doesn't seem to satisfy you. That's OK, really. But why get angry at us?

So you are trying to enlighten people, but not even caring if you bother to enlighten anyone?

Btw Han you do not seem to understand what deductive philosophy is, correct deductive philosophy is never invalid. And you seem to all basically be saying "do the reading and validate it yourself, we don't care".

How can you claim to be a group that want to further the evolution of humanity and the like, if you aren't even bothering to answer questions people put to you? Tis a very pompous notion. I don't need statistics to understand stuff, I need some sort of at least logical argument to show that it makes SENSE, otherwise what is the point in reading a mas of information to find out at the end it makes no sense.

Discussion does make things yes, but you can describe many very complex philosophical concepts without having to read the entire books each author wrote, if a concept is good, strong and true it will not need a mountain of jargon behind it, but will be able to be simplified into a short easy paragraph. If it can't then chances are it is not a very good argument.

 

[ark]

I recently read the article posted on shoutwire, and unlike a lot of people that are happy to take in one side of a story and believe it, I am more under the impression that you should never take one persons side of the story.

And that is exactly what we are doing. We are researching. We base our working hypotheses on the totality of available data, and we always look for more data. Moreover, we always ask ourselves: "who sez so?"

Now they can label you what they like, but I am past labelling people as it serves no real purpose,

You are wrong here. It serves a definite purpose. It is used in a scientific way by the media, intelligence and disinformation agencies, ADL etc.

but am curious about some of the things they mentioned in their article. I am aware that defamatory articles, even whole sites, have been put up in the past against you so am wondering if the following aspects about the cassiopean experiment are true:

Do you believe you talk to aliens through ouija boards

No, we do not "believe" ANYTHING. It has been said on this forum many times. You must have missed it. Now you know.

Do you use hypnosis to try and contact hidden parts of the mind

No. But I myself, some 30 years ago, was reading books about auto-hypnosis and experimented with it, perhaps for a month.

Although only two aspects at the moment, i'm curious about these mainly because of my knowledge of them. I'd like to hear your side of the story more due to the fact that like I said I will never take one side of an argument as correct, as it most of the time one side is never correct in an argument, or at least 100% correct.

I disagree. For instance, in mathematics, I do not need many sides. I read a theorem, I check the details of the proof, then I know. I do not need to read many proofs. When you are an expert in some area, it is not necessary to listen to many sides. It is always "useful", because it expands your horizons and often shows that other people know much less than you know, but it is not necessary.

If you could answer those 2 pieces of information for me I would be very greatful as if they are/aren't true I will have more queries about yourselves, but either way look forward to a response.

I answered, so I hope you are grateful :)

 

[Laura]

I understand the reading and all is needed, that is not the problem, the problem is there seems no validity in any of the research which is why I am skeptical about reading a large amount of it if it is based soley on trusting one person and messages that have been 'received' through them.

Right there is your first wrong assumption. You say "there seems no validity in any of the research" and yet immediately make it clear that you haven't READ it. Instead, you ASSUME that it is "based solely" on "trusting one person and messages."

Sorry, but that reminds me of the bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. How could any mechanical device such as a telescope reveal anything? It wasn't a product of "pure reason" which was the method of the old philosophers.

The fact is, there is plenty of RESEARCH, though you aren't going to find specifically "statistical research" for certain very obvious reasons. If you have already thoroughly researched so-called psychic phenomena, you will already understand why that is mostly a waste of time.

And if you think that the only thing that falls under the term "research" is statistics, then you are extremely ignorant of the actual activities of the academic community.

With most philosophical and theological teachings they usually have some form of validity to them, ie Christianity does have natural phenomena which seem to relate to some of the parables,

Say WHAT? Please tell me what "natural phenomena" relate to the parables (of Jesus, I assume?) to such an extent that it provides "validity" in the sense of what you mention above, i.e. "statistics."

most deductive philosophy makes 100% sense,

Please provide an example of deductive "philosophy" that makes "100%" sense.

And again, please relate this back to your thesis that this is so to such an extent that it provides "validity" in the sense of what you mention above, i.e. "statistics."

and a lot of empirical philosophy does also until you get to the point of stipulating answers from pure opinion.

Again, please relate this back to your thesis that this is so to such an extent that it provides "validity" in the sense of what you mention above, i.e. "statistics."

The main factor is, if it is just one person receiving messages through ouija and hypnotherapy,

Those darn assumptions without research will getcha every time. First of all, there has never been "just one person receving messages." Second, you obviously have no clue about the history of robust methods of channeling - and here there ARE statistics involved, and if you are particularly interested in those numbers, I invite you to read all the other research on our websites and convert it into said numbers just to show us where, when, how and why we have "gone off-track."

Second, we don't "receive messages" via hypnotherapy PERIOD. If you had read the material you would have learned that I spent 25 years as a hypnotherapist. THERAPIST. That is, to those who are familiar with the term, a person who uses hypnosis in a therapeutic way under the supervision of a psychologist or psychiatrist as part of the process of psychotherapy. It has nothing to do with "messages" or whatnot.

Further, even though experiments in receiving messages via hypnosis were tried on a couple of occasions, the method was discarded as being not only disabling, but also unreliable for the many reasons stated IN THE RESEARCH. So, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself by making such absurd statements if you had read said research.

I don't see any validity in it as it is solely one person.

I hope you have realized what a blunder you have made in this assumption.

But, aside from that, let's go back to your claim that "most philosophical and theological teachings they usually have some form of validity to them, ie Christianity does have natural phenomena which seem to relate to some of the parables".

Now, aren't Christianity, Judaism, and Islam supposed to be the products of ONE person? How do you explain that if there is no validity in anything produced by "one person"???

Psychological, sociological and philosophical investigations show how different things are valid and invalid based on sample size and other variables, so that's why I am hesistant to read much more, because it is a lot of reading and at the current outset it doesn't seem to have any rate of validity.

What a load of hooey. (That's a technical "research" term, by the way.)

I've already spent more time on your absurd, contradictory remarks than they deserve. Either read the research or don't. Suit yourself.

 

[vampire_f00d]

I'm angry at all, i'm just trying to explain it to you in terms you can understand as you don't seem to understand it at all. It's like this, you want me to read a mass of information that has all been divulged by 1 individual, that you claim is the further of human evolution and the answer to everything. All that information is pretty much just that 1 individuals word, and has no verification, justification or logical argument to it, and you don't seem to have any answer to that either, yet you are telling me to read it, why should I when all outsets point to it being just an opinion of one person, that many people follow for some reason as they seem to take it as a sort of divine word, when in reality it is just one person's perception of reality.

All of this information is supposed to hold deep secrets and meanings to the world and existence, yet it his obfuscated so much in terminolgy that it can't even simplify it at all to be accessible to more people, the most likely reason I can see for this is because if it is simplified in anyway then it probably will seem completely fictional so it is hidden behind a lot of technical jargon to try and give it some substance and verification.

When asking your groups members for some sort of verification, logical argument or justification of the whole texts, why they should be read, and why I should read them, you cannot give me any so the only thing that can really be concluded as you don't seem to want to give someone any real reason to read the texts, is that you all believe incoherently in soemthing that one person has said to beleive some fantastical vision of what life is supposed to be.

If you would like to give some sort of argument against that apart from 'read more' then that is all that can be concluded, as if you are simply saying that you cannot do this then you cannot show anyone that your belief has any justification too it at all and it is merely fiction created by laura for whatever needs she wills.

Any group, not just religous, in the world can usually sum up their belief in some sort of lamens terms so that an individual can understand these beliefs and disagree or agree with them, if you can't do this then that says something about the belief. You will most likely go on about belief-systems, but it is nothing to do with belief systems, it is simply a matter of fact. There is no group involved here in divulging information from what you have told me (you always refer to laura), there is no understanding except what laura pretty much tells you, it is simply just listening to laura and nodding like yes men.

So if you can justify your views, writings, research in anyway feel free to as I really would like to hear it. I would like to hear a summing up of the main points of your understandings, and in lamens terms that are accessible to everyone. When you go to school they don't just simply give you the books and then say "see you in 8 months for exams" they teach you, as members of a group that is your job, if you cannot do that then it just simply seems that you are all just listening to laura and doing everything and anything she wants. If you cannot teach or sum up, then how are you not just laura's intellectual slaves?

 

[ark]

Okay, I read the introduction to the wave series, and also the glossary points that were pointed to me but am kinda questioning the validity of the research you have done and also the philosophical stance of the implications of what laura is saying.

Good for you.

Firstly it says that hypnotic regression was used, and it has been found out conclusively that hynoptic regression is usually part of the sub-conscious, that actually invents whatever information is divulged in the regression, as they have found so many people that claim to be a famous figure of the past, but all exist now.

You are right.

Which would either mean that in order for that to be the case, more than one soul would have to live in a body at once, or like they have concluded it is most likely an invention of the persons mind to satisfy some unconscious desire. The other thing about the regression was that you said that in the regression sessions one of the subjects foretold a future event that would be to happen, that seems paradoxical because in regression you are supposed to go back in time to a previous life, if the regression was being used to maybe go forward into a future life if that was even possible (even though regression has been falsified), it would indicate that time has already been mapped out, and there is nothing we can do to change it.

Paradoxical things do happen. Once in a while.

Similarly to how Laura says she is talking to herself in the future, if the future already exists in space and time, it means that we cannot change it as it is inevitable to end up that way, it's paradoxical if people from the future are trying to change the past as the future they are in would not exist and neither would they if any other event happened.

Wrong reasoning. Future does not exist in space and time. It may well exist somewhere else. These things are not easy. You should study
physics to understand it better.

The other point that bothered me a bit was the fact that you were using a ouija board to contact people in the future (forgetting aside this is a paradox).

This is YOUR paradox, not an objective paradox. You should study quantum physics to understand it.

First of all people who take part in seance and ouija board sessions are very susceptible to auto-suggestion from the sub-conscious, so quite often the information gained from those instances is merely the sub-conscious telling the conscious what it wants to hear. If you aren't susceptible to auto-suggestion yet still manage to get a response from a ouija board, it needs to be made sure that the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram is done before hand (cabbalistic ceremony) to banish all negative entities from around you, if you don't do this all you could basically end up with is a malevolent spirit that is having fun with you and feeding you lies for its own entertainment.

Different people have different intelligence, different abilities, different approaches. You are making an error again by using a common denominator. Perhaps you should study logic.

The astral plain is a very dangerous place for us humans due to the fact we are right ontop of the lowest level of it so that basically we are right next to all the malevolent spirits, so if no protection ritual was taken, which it doesn't say in any of the introduction that is the case, then I would find it hard to believe that the session material is valid due to the fact it could both be auto-suggestion unless the relevant precautions were taken to avoid that, and it could also be misinformation from malevolent spirits.

The same error as above.

If you could clear any of this up for me i'd be very greatful.

Probably you mean "grateful"?

 

[han]

Btw Han you do not seem to understand what deductive philosophy is, correct deductive philosophy is never invalid. And you seem to all basically be saying "do the reading and validate it yourself, we don't care".

The way I understand deductive philosophy is when you start with a preconcieved conclusion. Then you try to find arguments to deduce towards said conclusion, like this:

"You can't believe in beliefs as they are not useful in anyway
We have no logical argument or evidence to back up our ideas
Therefore our ideas are beliefs
Therefore our ideas are useless."

Or, like this: "1 + 2 = 5. Well, that makes sense."

That way, everything will always be 100% correct, based on presumptuous assumptions.

 

[Z...]

I recently read the article posted on shoutwire, and unlike a lot of people that are happy to take in one side of a story and believe it, I am more under the impression that you should never take one persons side of the story. Now they can label you what they like, but I am past labelling people as it serves no real purpose, but am curious about some of the things they mentioned in their article. I am aware that defamatory articles, even whole sites, have been put up in the past against you so am wondering if the following aspects about the cassiopean experiment are true:

[VaMpIrE^F00D]

You say this

after you have just said this:

vampiref00d, on 11/30/2006 1:15:42 PM
Total Posts: 204, Joined: 1/4/2006
Very good article, and Go Vir for uncovering the fruitcakes that run the SOTT


Still people on this forum were more than kind enough with your pathetic little attempt to flame ,
they gave you benefit of a doubt and you got your three pages, if you havent learned antything from this I can only feel pity for you

 

[ark]

Right I read that introduction thing, and it sorta caused more problems in my head than clearing them up.

I accept the possibility that their are other possible dimensions of the universe, and that a so called branch of a dimension can occur when say either one person makes a decision in their life, or someone intervenes from the future, that is acceptable in a way to me although it is still kinda paradoxical in a sense, but you still arrive at the same problem that time is a defined structure that has a beginning and an end and we are just parts of it.

Who told you that? You really need to study space, time, and quantum theory, also logic. Otherwise you will only embarrass yourself by talking about things that you did not study.

I know time itself does not exist and it is merely a concept developed by humans in order to understand the world around us, but the whole "we are you in the future" thing causes a problem if you apply Einstein's causal loop thing so that it is probable to jump in and out of time.

Again, you are talking about things that you did study. Search internet for Godel and Deutsch - for a starter.

It is possible to say that the messages being received, if they were from the future, could not at all be you in the future but be you in the past, as if with the causal loop you can theoretically jump in and out of time when you please, then there would be absolutely no way of telling at what point in time these messages were coming from.

Here you are right. there is absolutely no way. that is why we are working with "working hypotheses". We say it again and again on our web pages, but you did not read it. Now you know.

To say that they are coming from the future is necessarily an assumption and it is just as likely they could be coming from the past, say, pre human era when (Forgive me for saying this) if Scientology would have it, that the souls of the aliens or whatever they believe, were on the earth.

Of course you are entitled to your own hypothesis. But to make it plausible, you should study first, and do it diligently, physics and logic.

The other problem I still have is with the validity of the messages received. I know you said that rituals are just waving your arms around and the like, but the astral plain has a decent amount of credibility to show that it exists, or at least some plain of further experience what with experiements done into ectoplasm, photo's and EVP, but when you are taking messages that could be auto-suggestion, or malevolent spirits interfering then it is virtually impossible to validate in anyway possible.

That is why we insist on research. Again: We say it again and again on our web pages, but you did not read it. Now you know.

It is possible to get around the auto-suggestion thing by simply disorientating a person so they don't know where they are, blindfolding them, and then starting the ouija board, and malevolent spirits can be avoided by doing the LBRP, but the reason rituals like the LBRP work is because of the overlapping of the astral and physical bodies, so while it may not appear to have any effect on our plane of existence, on the astral plane it is far different as the vibration rates of the atoms and particles on that plane are different, so different resonating effects are produced.

Where is the proof that rituals work? "Work" in which sense?

I am also interested how you managed to take a photo of an Aura as it is to do with the parts of the eye that are used in viewing a persons aura, I can't remember exactly which bits it is but I know that you have to use the part of the eye that we are taught to stop using when we are young. It's why children often wave at things, and say they see colours around people, because they see halo's and other astral entities.

Standard Kirlian-type photography. Search the net for "Kirlian".

Reality is basically what people make of it as there is no way to confirm what is infront of our faces as we all have the ability of perception, but the whole matrix thing as I explained before destroys validity even more due to the fact that if you are saying that everything we experience is a simulation, then there is no way of confirming to ourselves that even the other people in our existence are a simulation, so the only conclusive analysis we can make is that if we are in a simulation everything is simulated.

That is why we insist on research. Again: We say it again and again on our web pages, but you did not read it. Now you know.

The final thing is that if someone wants you to believe that they are being honest when they are trying to manipulate you (if it was the case of malevolent spirirts using ouija), then they would be very likely to say that some of what they transmit isn't true to lead you into a false sense of security about their trustworthiness as basically they want to try and convince you as much as possible due to the fact that what they are telling you could very well be a manipulation.

That is why we insist on research. Again: We say it again and again on our web pages, but you did not read it. Now you know.

I just have a problem understanding the validity of all this as I have read a lot of theology/philosophy and see how different validities work, and how the problems arise from things, but can't see any validity here as to how it is possible that anything of this is not just simply taking someones word that everything that they are receiving is true, and they're not just accessing their subconscious and 'finding' stuff that they merely want to find.

You should study also physics, mathematics, logic, and do it diligently. It may help.

 

[Beau]

If you cannot teach or sum up, then how are you not just laura's intellectual slaves?

You're setting up a straw man argument. You refuse to allow anything that has been said to you to satisfy your cravings. This means either you are too dense to understand it, or you are intentionally side-stepping what has been said just to get a rise ouf of the people on this forum. You don't have any real desire to understand the material. Your supposed neutrality is so superficial. This allows you to continually claim that no one has been able to satisfy your "query", which wasn't anything more than a trolls attempt to flame.

You won't last long here.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I'm angry at all, i'm just trying to explain it to you in terms you can understand as you don't seem to understand it at all. It's like this, you want me to read a mass of information that has all been divulged by 1 individual, that you claim is the further of human evolution and the answer to everything. All that information is pretty much just that 1 individuals word, and has no verification, justification or logical argument to it, and you don't seem to have any answer to that either, yet you are telling me to read it, why should I when all outsets point to it being just an opinion of one person, that many people follow for some reason as they seem to take it as a sort of divine word, when in reality it is just one person's perception of reality.

First... Laura's work is not the only work being done. But I am not going to spend time convincing of you of that because.... Well... You have not given me any reason why I should bother. It does not matter anyway but to set the record straight... You wrote: "All that information is pretty much just that 1 individuals word, and has no verification, justification or logical argument to it." But you also admit you have not read it, so how could you possibly know that it has no verification, justification, or logical argument. We are about figuring how things work and why. We have some working hypotheses that have had a lot of time and energy and research (and not statistical research either... oh my...) put into them , and we are not going to drop it all for some stranger who critiques material he/she won't even look at. If you don't like it here, I am sure there are other boards where critiquing things you refuse to study is welcome.