It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

page: 85
154
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

lostgirl
Boy, I must be doing extremely badly at trying to explain myself, because your replies are indicating complete misinterpretation of what I keep trying to express (If anyone here has been able to 'read between my lines', please feel free to help me out)....


It is not a matter of my misinterpreting what you are trying to express, I understand, but I am, progressively, amending my own perception based upon the expansion of knowledge resulting from the on-going discussion and I am expressing that. I thought that we were exchanging information seeking a concensus with the view to formulating an experimental basis by which to create results. We are not going to agree on every point of definition without 'banging it out' as it were.


lostgirl
This was 'speaking' to earlier posts by some others in the thread about Crowley, et al and how the 'magic' they were doing was a form of attracting and having effects on the (supernatural/paranormal Control System (as opposed to the 'Black ops' control system)...
My point being that part of doing such 'magic' successfully necessitates that one have a 'belief' in it...


Yes, I understood that that was what you meant, but what I wanted was for YOU to define what YOU understood 'magic' to be in the given context. So, for example, if you go back to the article that Bybyots linked to a few pages back regarding the genesis of the Simon Necronomicon, the author of the article, while acknowledging it to be a created fabrication, or practical 'joke', also acknowledged that if the rituals were followed to the letter they could work. Therefore, we need to question whether it is the 'belief' in magic, or the adherence to ritual that facilitates outcome, and from that extrapolate whether a willingness to be open to a 'unknown' experience without expectation of outcome can be accomplished. To clarify, what I am trying to express is that belief may effect resultant outcome, ritual may effect resultant outcome...but what we perhaps should be looking at is achieveing is a more neutral/objective formulae based on mere 'willingness' to communicate.


lostgirl
The above really comes down to semantics...
when you say that the CS "gains it's physical form based on belief systems", you are certainly talking about a 'phenomena' which could most easily be described (as I have done) as supernatural/paranormal - anything that we "have to recalibrate our perception to see" must certainly be considered 'outside' the "natural or normal (as in super- or para- to)"...


Again, I am not disagreeing with your's, or the common perception of such combined phenomenon as being paranormal or supernatural, what I was expressing is that, based on the discussion, that it appears to me to be a natural phenomenon and that we should consider it as such. Recalibration implies that we need to adjust our perceptions to accommodate that awareness, as in, we need to recalibrate, not to 'see' or 'experience' the phenomenon, but rather to accept it's 'normal' or 'natural' occurence within a subset of the human population.


lostgirl
My point being that you seem not to have understood that throughout the thread most of us have used the terms supernatural or paranormal to differentiate the 'particular' Control System of Vallee's from the 'physical'/psy-ops engineered control system...
...which is why I used those terms when I started talking about utilizing 'belief' (thus 'choosing' to believe) as a means to experiment with Vallee's control system...


Again, to reiterate, I am not disagreeing with you, I am suggesting ways in which we can approach the appraisal of the phenomenon in a different way.


lostgirl
At this point, if I still haven't expressed it clearly enough, maybe someone else can take a shot at it?


You are explaining yourself well enough, I don't think that that is the problem here. We are either discussing the subject as a collective group, hammering out the details with the aim to achieve a concensus from which to develop a robust experimental method or you already feel as though you have that down pat and should perhaps proceed. As I said, and I apologise if that has been unclear, I am simply offering suggestions based upon my own interpretation of the information brought forth for discussion here.




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Bybyots
I'm grateful for this group process that it drove me to nail down the prostaglandins that might affect temporal lobe seizure. Prostaglandins are, indeed, special fats that are carefully crafted by enzymes from fatty acids.

Prostaglandins are key to regulating the inflammatory process and it has been found that the prostaglandin E2 receptor, EP1 and the way that it influences protein uptake during seizure is a factor in temporal lobe epilepsy.


This is very, very interesting...though I could do with you extrapolating a little. I don't have TLE, or visions or the such like, however the closest I have ever come to any kind of OBE type-sort-of-thingy was when I was giving birth, and I went 'elsewhere'. It was a protracted labour, so there could be numerous contributory factors to that 'elsewhere-ness', so I am not jumping on the bandwagon, but given the prostaglandin correlation and my own 'rationalisation' of that experience as being somewhat of a retreat to a 'primal' space as a survival mechanism against the pain/exhaustion combo...I gotta wonder.


Bybyots
Unrelated to the studies that show how fatty acids influence temporal-lobe epilepsy are the studies that show how the fatty acids gamma linolenic acid and linoleic acid, have been shown to have somehow caused "electroencephalographic features of temporal lobe epilepsy" to become more apparent in schizophrenic patients.

The form of gamma linolenic fatty acid that was used was evening primrose oil.


Again, very interesting. I used to take large amounts of evening primrose oil to counteract menstrual problems. I haven't for some years. And while I am not schizophrenic, I do have certain personality traits that correlate (which is more than enough information amongst relative strangers
).


Bybyots
Finally, if one could have an "experience" just by "intending to have an experience", then why would Persinger have to build a God Helmet?


Hmmm? This gets to a certain crux of an issue though. On one hand we can perhaps agree that TLE and TLL represent a sensitivity of perception, indicating that a certain subset of the population may be inclined towards a natural proclivity of perceptual ability not readily available to all. On the other hand, we need to acknowledge that there is a historical basis for the understanding that similar experiences have been induced.

We either need to categorise such experiences as 'forced' and therefore unrepresentative of the 'natural' phenomenon, in which case we need to devise or create some sort of parametres for gauging what is the 'norm' or we need to integrate 'intent' into our model (which is what my prior long ramble about 'root stock grafting' was about). As in, does 'passive' imply objectivity, while 'induced' could be subjective, and therefore somewhat predictive of outcome????

To summarise/clarify...are we to discount 'experiences' that are preceeded by 'exercises' and 'ritual' as belonging to the 'pantomime'?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

I apologize, I was actually misperceiving your writings as being somewhat argumentative...I'm sorry to have caused so much inadvertent tail chasing...

Re: your comment about the Simon Necronomicon and the question of whether it is "'belief' in magic or adherence to ritual" which facilitates out come -

- My opinion is that the answer lies in a combination of belief in magic, belief in the ritual itself, plus - sustained, focused intention...

I was discussing this with a friend and we agreed that specific rituals are not necessary to effect magic - you could even make up your own rituals and get results, so long as you 'believe in' your ritual...

The caveat is that not just 'anyone' can do magic, probably not most people...I think it's most likely similar to psychic abilities in that some people have it and some don't...


As an aside (not related to the Control System aspects of magic) here's an interesting idea I had the first time I read a book on quantum physics:

Suppose you've got a person with psychokinetic abilities and unlike the typical 'moving objects around the room' stuff, this person can actually psychically affect matter at the quantum level...
They can 'manipulate' atoms to the degree that they would be able to 'pull' different ones from around a room, put them together in different ways, and thus materialize objects or substances (seemingly) out of thin air...

Looked at this way, it could be truly said that 'magic' is scientifically possible!



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Bybyots
Finally, if one could have an "experience" just by "intending to have an experience", then why would Persinger have to build a God Helmet?

Maybe Persinger just never thought of trying to 'intend' an experience? Or maybe he tried it, and being limited by his disbelief, was unsuccessful...maybe his brain is configured wrongly and simply isn't capable of perceiving 'the mystical' without a 'boost' from his helmet?

Just because the helmet manifests 'God' experiences in people, doesn't mean that no one ever truly experiences 'God'/'the mystical'.

And if all 'esoteric' type experience is nothing more than a 'glitch' (whether chemical or electrical) in the temporal lobes...how do you explain people who have wide varieties of experiences under widely variant circumstances, yet who have never had a seizure of any kind?
And whose MRIs show absolutely no brain anomalies?

I agree that the temporal lobes probably do account for many 'supposed' experiences, but I don't think the fact automatically rules out that 'real' experiences can happen...



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Persinger's helmet didn't cause the experience in everyone who tried it.


Also I thought about something over the last few days. In Keel's writings, we often see the smell of rotten eggs pop up again and again. This odor is caused by hydrogen sulphide - which is actually a really nasty chemical. I tried my hand at power engineering (boiler operations) and one of the things we had to do was practice with breathing gear in case of an H2S leak. Now, in high concentrations this stuff will more or less render you unconscious instantly. However, in lower doses I'm wondering if it couldn't put people into a trance state, or at least lower the barrier to a liminal state.

Anyone else looking into this?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by lostgirl
 




Maybe Persinger just never thought of trying to 'intend' an experience?


Then why did he build a device specifically intended to stimulate the temporal lobes if he was not intending for himself and others to experience what those with very labile temporal lobes experience?




The "God Helmet" refers to an experimental apparatus originally called the "Koren helmet" after its inventor Stanley Koren. It was developed by Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes...





"We place no reliance On Virgin or Pigeon; Our method is Science, Our aim is Religion."

-A. Crowley


Crowley intended for "belief" to be used by the magician as though it were a piece of laboratory equipment. This "choose your belief" thing that you keep talking about? How long do you suppose that has been a feature of human society, "choosing one's belief's?"

Which do you think has been around longer as a driving feature of human societies? People undergoing catastrophic religious conversion due to temporal lobe epilepsy, or this feature of being able to "choose one's belief's" by which I take you to mean choosing the spiritual or religious paradigm under which one operates.

The reason that I brought up 777 and The Book of Thoth is that Crowley was obviously trying to get somewhere specific, in most cases culturally and philosophically specific. His hypothesis seems to have been "we can get there from here if we have a map".



Just because the helmet manifests 'God' experiences in people, doesn't mean that no one ever truly experiences 'God'/'the mystical'.


Yeah, lostgirl, that's sorta the point of posting the Hildegard and the St. Paul.



"...maybe his brain is configured wrongly and simply isn't capable of perceiving 'the mystical' without a 'boost' from his helmet?"

"And if all 'esoteric' type experience is nothing more than a 'glitch' (whether chemical or electrical) in the temporal lobes.."


I have been as careful as I am able to when it comes to not suggesting that there is anything wrong with anyone at whatever depth they experience their temporal lobes and the rest of the system they are connected to.

That's why I have stated that I don't think there is anything super-natural at work here and that it is all entirely natural as far as the True Control System is concerned.

No one has anything wrong with their brains, nor is there any glitch involved.



how do you explain people who have wide varieties of experiences under widely variant circumstances, yet who have never had a seizure of any kind?


Widely variant temporal lobes?

Also, lostgirl, the proof is in the pudding, all it takes is a tiny handful of really active temporal lobes, and in the case of Hildegard and St. Paul? Someone to write it all down. Everyone does not apparently have to be a Paul or Hildegard; or a Whitley for that matter, there are thousands that share his visions with him through his...writing.




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bybyots
 



No one has anything wrong with their brains, nor is there any glitch involved.

Thank god! I was beginning to worry. I am trying to catch up with the discussion and I am a little lost. do you mind giving me a quick summary? Best I can tell is you are exploring the hallucinatory aspects of the "control system" (whatever that is), High Strangeness, yada, yada...

I am going to try again, but you guys are off in another realm! interesting conversation.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Bybyots - have you checked out Julian Jaynes?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 1ofthe9
 


Yes I have, 1ofthe9.

Member Eidolon23 introduced that a couple of years back when we were running in these same circles. I am no expert at all on Jaynes' ideas concerning the bicameral mind and the bicameral human, but I remember that we had come to the basic conclusion that some people might be still experiencing that sort of thing to a greater or lesser degree.

It's a really fascinating subject and one that is down the same road that I tend towards when considering all of this stuff. I know that there is a great deal more there in Jaynes' ideas for us to explore. I also remember that the last time it came up I was thinking a lot about what it is that seems to have inspired and compelled people all over the world to build megaliths.


edit on 11-3-2014 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

1ofthe9
Bybyots - have you checked out Julian Jaynes?


In context with the Garden of Eden, that thought train could go a long ways!

We may not be unraveling the CS, but I'm sure broadening the horizons of my mind. Thanks, 1of9!



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
As to the first sentence in your reply 'box' below...

...When I wrote, "Maybe Persinger just never thought of trying to 'intend' an experience?"

It was a direct reply to your question....

"if one could have an "experience" just by "intending to have an experience", then why would Persinger have to build a God helmet?"

.....and my use of the word "intend" was meant as a direct inference to the first part of your sentence re: 'having an experience by means of 'intention'...

So, I was saying, maybe he 'had' "to build a God helmet", because (and this just the first of possible 'reasons' I listed) he hadn't ever considered 'trying' to utilize 'intention' to have an experience.

(I've really gotta do a better job of putting my thinking into words, because I am just not getting across...)


Bybyots
reply to post by lostgirl
 

Then why did he build a device specifically intended to stimulate the temporal lobes if he was not intending for himself and others to experience what those with very labile temporal lobes experience?


Crowley intended for "belief" to be used by the magician as though it were a piece of laboratory equipment. This "choose your belief" thing that you keep talking about? How long do you suppose that has been a feature of human society, "choosing one's belief's?"

Which do you think has been around longer as a driving feature of human societies? People undergoing catastrophic religious conversion due to temporal lobe epilepsy, or this feature of being able to "choose one's belief's" by which I take you to mean choosing the spiritual or religious paradigm under which one operates.

The reason that I brought up 777 and The Book of Thoth is that Crowley was obviously trying to get somewhere specific, in most cases culturally and philosophically specific. His hypothesis seems to have been "we can get there from here if we have a map".

I have been as careful as I am able to when it comes to not suggesting that there is anything wrong with anyone at whatever depth they experience their temporal lobes and the rest of the system they are connected to.

That's why I have stated that I don't think there is anything super-natural at work here and that it is all entirely natural as far as the True Control System is concerned.
No one has anything wrong with their brains, nor is there any glitch involved.


(Really sorry, but can't work out how to intersperse individual quotes, so my replies follow the order of your 'points' above...)

I don't think I have ever used terms like "choosing one's beliefs" or "choose one's beliefs" -
- what I have said is that if attempting to affect the 'Vallee' Control System, it would be necessary to 'choose belief' (choose 'to' believe), because (and a few on the thread have agreed) I think that belief is one component in any type of 'process' one might develop for the purpose of an attempt at affecting such a Control System as Vallee 'subscribes' to...

And in point of fact, my thinking here directly agrees with what you were writing about Crowley, et al - in the sense of my hypothesizing that anyone who planned to attempt doing 'work' utilizing Crowley's "map" as you put it, would have to 'believe' in that work, and such 'belief' must be (to one degree or another) a 'choice', depending on how thoroughly one has been 'programmed' (by parents/society) against any possibility that magic could exist...

None of my comments on belief ever had anything to do with (to quote you), "choosing the spiritual or religious paradigm under which one operates."

And I never said anything to indicate (regardless the cause, of temporal lobe 'experiences') that anyone "has anything wrong with their brains"...the term "glitch" was intended to be an abbreviated way of referring to 'whatever causes such temporal lobe experiences'...

....Heck, I use the term 'glitch' to describe whatever it is (likely genetic) in my own brain which has inflicted me with life-long Major Depressive Disorder (the kind of depression wherein all the psychological testing shows the patient to have no mental health pathologies).

I also never said that there was anything 'un'natural in anyone having such temporal lobe experiences...

The word 'supernatural' does not in any way mean 'un'natural...it refers to phenomena that is 'other' then the 'commonly understood' definition of "natural" (I guess I shouldn't have assumed that people who haven't read C.S. Lewis's book "Miracles" would be able to make the distinction)...

At this point I offer genuine apologies for using up so much 'thread space' trying to explain myself...I just really hate being misunderstood...

And please forgive me but - frankly, I'm a bit hurt that people either had not been reading or not bothered 'retaining' any of my earlier writings in the thread, because if they had, they would know what I'm talking about in the way I've used certain terminology...
...and being aware of my wide open mindedness, might have taken some effort to attempt to 'read between the lines' in willingness to fully understand the 'intent' behind the terminology...



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I think I need to leave the thread at this point...it seems like all I'm doing is wasting 'pages' trying to explain my 'contributions'...or maybe I'll just shut up and stick to only reading from now on...



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

lostgirl
I apologize, I was actually misperceiving your writings as being somewhat argumentative...I'm sorry to have caused so much inadvertent tail chasing...


Don't worry about it, no apology necessary, I can be blunt and I am not emotionally invested in the finer points of the discussion, no disrespect meant, but you clearly are, as are others. That is perfectly understandable, all things considered.

I do not think that it is a matter of your previous contributions being overlooked or forgotten, I think that the difficulty is that we are all running at different speeds and levels of understanding. If you feel as though you are not being understood, perhaps it is because you do not fully understand what it is that you are trying to communicate yourself. That can be a major pitfall in self-expression.

Take some time, think things through, and attempt to detach yourself a little emotionally from the subject - it will aid in clarity, both of mind and expression. I value the thought and effort that you have put into your contributions, and I think that if you allow yourself a little space, despite your dislike of writing, that you can strengthen your argument and communicate it more effectively, permitting us all to discuss it more fully. It is not a matter of repeating yourself, more of consolidation.

Do not be disheartened.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

lostgirl
I think I need to leave the thread at this point...it seems like all I'm doing is wasting 'pages' trying to explain my 'contributions'...or maybe I'll just shut up and stick to only reading from now on...


I wouldn't worry about it. I am not so sure anything real is actually being discussed. Magik, frontal lobes and control systems oh my!

what are the major points? I can't tell! I will go back to laughing at my own farts.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I've got a sneaking suspicion that you're up to something, Gut!
Where is that mind of yours going to take us now?!

Patiently waiting.....
Ms.Nugget



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



the author of the article, while acknowledging it to be a created fabrication, or practical 'joke', also acknowledged that if the rituals were followed to the letter they could work.

That is magik with a k. Adherence to a ritual "to the letter " as a requirement in order for it to "work" is, by default, a suggestion that it works. This is also known as a placebo.


Therefore, we need to question whether it is the 'belief' in magic, or the adherence to ritual that facilitates outcome, and from that extrapolate whether a willingness to be open to a 'unknown' experience without expectation of outcome can be accomplished.
that sounds challenging. Off the top of my head. Tell one group it "works", another group it doesn't, and have one group to have no expectations. How do you determine that someone has "no expectations" and at the same time make them follow a ritual to the letter? Of course any negative outcome is due them having expectations of failure and or not following the ritual to the letter.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Bybyots
 



Then why did he build a device specifically intended to stimulate the temporal lobes if he was not intending for himself and others to experience what those with very labile temporal lobes experience?

well according to the wiki page
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The "God Helmet" refers to an experimental apparatus originally called the "Koren helmet" after its inventor Stanley Koren. It was developed by Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes.[1] Reports by participants of a "sensed presence" while wearing the God helmet brought public attention and resulted in several TV documentaries.

the intention was to study creativity and the effects (if any) of stimulating the frontal lobe. The wiki article then goes on about how it wasn't reproducible? I am probably missing the point but what is the point of discussing a device that doesn't work?



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 1ofthe9
 



So how could I go about having an 'experience'? I'm willing to be the thread guinea pig

Well, legally? Spring is coming. Get a bike, go up to a place like Maine or any place there is very nice scenery. On a nice day, ride all day long and make sure you stop by the cow pasture. You should have lots of music pumped directly into your ears. I recommend pink Floyd, some grateful dead, but that's not for everyone. Any tone and rhythm really.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

nugget1
I've got a sneaking suspicion that you're up to something, Gut!
Where is that mind of yours going to take us now?!

Patiently waiting.....
Ms.Nugget

Haha...yeah, you're right. Some here are claiming to have an "open mind" while at the same time cherry-picking their sources and totally ignoring the "paradoxes."

Those that shy away from "consciousness" probably don't even realize that they are one chopstick shy of a pair as far as true intellectual deliniation is concerned. Nor the fact that Persinger, while brilliant and possibly important, is legitamately contradicted. Even the brilliant Bybyots dissed him earlier and now attempts to use him to make some shaky point!

A historical step back suggests an age-old competition. Whether a subconscious "fight," within our human nature or something more cosmic...it's there and undeniable. The so-called "science" and cherry-picked "history" being quoted by some is fairly laughable and fails to address the total matrix of questions.

My biggest concern with these arguments is the unwillingness to trust that a mature intellect can come to it's own stated conclusions, rather than the attempt to hide behind a few self-satisfying quotations.

edit on 12-3-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join