Ideomotor Communication and Art

[Aster]

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc

Hello mr. Randi and everyone.

Allow me to introduce myself to you. My name is Aster. I am a professional ideomotor artist and communicator with over 20 years of experience creating automatic writings and drawings. I always work in a state of trance or self hypnosis.

The work I do started in 1979, when ideomotor movements had not yet physically occurred into writing or drawing, but were experienced as a latently present force, pulling my mind and body from the inside. In that time I created an oil painting which shows a peculiar burrial scene. Odd characteristic of this burrial scene was that the freshly dug grave was situated just outside a cemetary wall. Behind the wall I painted various graves. The freshly dug grave however, was outside this graveyard. It contained a coffin, that was placed over the grave, resting on two wooden support beams. As I said, I painted this in 1979.

In 1983 my brother was murdered in Israel, shot in the head. Me and my family chose to burry him in Israel. We encoutered much problem there, because my brother was not jewish and not of any religion. When we finally were offered a place to burry his body, it appeared to be a freshly dug grave, outside of the cemetary walls. The reason was because his body was not fit to be burried in holy ground.

Three weeks after the burrial, in february 1983, a directive thought just entered my head, just like someone else speaking to me in a way that was so convincingly external, I had to follow up it's command to take a pen and paper. As soon as I laid my pen on the paper, the pen moved by itself. Soft and curly streakes and movements at first, drawing little drawings, but then followed by writings.

Since then, the automatic writing and drawing have been like fire and water with me, experiencing something gradually day by day. Not a single day, the ideomotor effects - after a trauma that was psychically seen and expressed years before it actually happened - have been without the experiencing.

Today I have a collection of over 500 original automatic drawings and a comprehensive study in the field. My work and experience has been noticed by IHEI in White Russia, the International Humanitarian and Economics institute, research facilities at psylab, laboratory for expirimental psychology. I have exhibited my work only twice in the Netherlands, where I work and live, and several times in Russia, whereunder the prestigeous Maxim Bogdanovich's museum.

This year our book will be presented. It contains all information about the obscure ideomotor effects and trance experiencing. But besides the scientific approach you will find a comprehensive account of the mystical and spiritual experiences, equivalent to more than 1000 personal sessions of therapeutic regression, reincarnation and selfhypnosis.

I wonder why true Art messages could not be seen as evidence to support paranormal claims such as my own. Is my life work itself not supporting evidence to the fact that humans can truely foresee the future ?

Best wishes to you all. I welcome your comments.
If you should decide to visit my website, please be reminded that it has not been updated since two years or so... so it only has the expirimental expressions of the strongest ideomotor / sensorimotor experiences.
Rgds.,
Aster.

[Pyrrho]

I'm afraid I find it rather unremarkable.

[Aster]

Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.

[roger]

I also looked at your website.

Perhaps language differences are getting in the way, but I didn't see anything I would characterize as "splendid and monumental". In fact, I can't really figure out what your claim is, other than you are doing automatic drawing. Perhaps if you find the time you could explain exactly what you claim to do?

roger

[Aster]

You write that you looked at my website but failed to see the splendour and monumental qualities of my work... Well, most people don't, so you know under which umbrella you're walking. Anyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

I opt that, if it were you who would be the experiencer of an ideomotor effect, there would not be a doubt in your mind that your experience is utterly convincing and that my art is radiating with splendour; there is not a doubt in my mind that you would be fully appreciating my work and see the monumental quality. I mean my art is evidence of the ideomotor process in function and my work is there, to be viewed and critisized, in abundance.

It is much like Randi states: "Unless you have actually experienced the ideomotor effect at work in yourselves, you cannot have a proper appreciation of how absolutely compelling and irresistable it can be and is."

In my case, I have over 1000 hours of experiencing the ideomotor effects on my own body, and equivalently the same number of trance induced sessions expirimenting with ideomotoric responses, resulting in over 500 original automatic drawings; symbolically speaking, accompanied with the fruit of a theory that seems forever riping, forever growing into richer perspectives over the years.

That in itself is a monumental achievement. But at least worth a closer look and an intelligent comment. And I place myself gladly at the service of those serieously investigating and expirimenting with the phenomenon.

My claim is not that I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor graphic artist.

I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?

And is spiritual contact, for instance with a deceased family member, scientifically proven not possible ? I will say it is possible now and it will be more possible in the years to come. I have my ideomotor art to support me in my, what this forum calls it, eternal delusion.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.
Not a person, but equally monumental work:

http://www.baliadventuretours.com/BAT-Elephant_Art_Gallery.htm

Apply your simple mirror effect and there you have it. All that remains to be done is to invent a "meaningful" interpretation.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster

My claim is not that I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor graphic artist.


Wow, when do you want your check, lol.


I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?


Wait, you are 'fishing' for clear and outspoken support for your wacky beliefs in a skeptics forum?

What we all clearly and outspokenly believe is that the death of your brother left an emotional hole in you that you chose to fill with a made up belief. The kindest of us will hope that you will see the error of your ways before your own death.

If you saw your brothers death in a painting five years before he was murdered then why did you not warn him? I don't mean to attack you, but you may have built a complex system of guilt and should seek professional counseling.

[Earthborn]

It is much like Randi states: "Unless you have actually experienced the ideomotor effect at work in yourselves, you cannot have a proper appreciation of how absolutely compelling and irresistable it can be and is." Aster, remember that Randi has a very different definition of what the 'ideomotor effect' is than you apperently do. In Randi's and most skeptic's understanding it is an illusion in dowsing or using a pendulum.
Perhaps to avoid confusion, you should stick with the terms 'automatic writing' and 'automatic drawing'.I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?Well, you tell us. Can you draw something that you don't know but someone else is able to check whether you got it right? If so, it would be amazing.
If you can only draw things that nobody can check, then most people here would just assume it came from your own fantasy and doesn't exist.

[Charlie in Dayton]

...oh no...not another one...

Hey Carlos! Come get your kid brother...:rolleyes:

Let's put it like this, o galactic expert in automatic pencil pushing...try a little automatic READING, as in, if you're after some PR and/or money at Mr. R's expense, then file for the Million. Otherwise, take your egotistical paranormal hat sketches and hit the Great American Highway.

Originally posted by Aster Is my life work itself not supporting evidence to the fact that humans can truely foresee the future ?
No. Accurate and definitive descriptions and details of events yet to happen, submitted and examined under proper controlled conditions, would be supportive evidence of foreseeing the future. Drawing a picture and then matching it to circumstances after the fact don't count.

I welcome your comments.
You asked for it...

If you should decide to visit my website, please be reminded that it has not been updated since two years or so...
And why is that? Didn't you foresee the need for current evidence to present on this board way back then?

[Aster]

pyrrho2000 wrote :

Not a person, but equally monumental work:

http://www.baliadventuretours.com/B...Art_Gallery.htm

Apply your simple mirror effect and there you have it. All that remains to be done is to invent a "meaningful" interpretation.

- - -

I have seen a similar project done with chimpansees. The paintings created by these animals are absolutely great and seem similar to the chaotic scribbles of drawings that babys or siblings make. One thing is to create an image that you have in mind, like the sun or the moon, and not be able to recreate it because your motor system is dysfunctional. Another thing is to allow for an ideomotor expression which does not happen as a result of any consciously preconceived image, but originates from a subconsciously preconceived image of the movement. Perhaps this is what you show us here.

As far as the mirroring of my drawings is concerned, you believe that you have me all figured out, and that my art is nothing but chaotic scribble that gets its meaning after applying a mirror to it.

It is very common that appreciating the clear and vivid representations of chaotic and material thought, of image and representation of movement and of emotion, does not come instantly to a viewing audience. In other words, it takes time and experience to appreciate the original and undisturbed automatic drawing or ideomotoric artistic expression.

The mirroring of my work serves a clear purpose that I have not yet discussed here. It is not the effect's I am after, but it is to express the light line or birth canal, along which the natural reproduction process takes place. Ideomotor art or writings have a common feature and that is that the information seems to be overlapping or layered. This made me create mirror images.

And whereas you may not think much of paintings and art created by elephants or chimps, and use someone's incredible achievement to get animals to create art like this, as an example by which to ridiculize my work, I must add that I love them and thank you for showing this here.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

Rusty_the_boy_robot wrote:

Wait, you are 'fishing' for clear and outspoken support for your wacky beliefs in a skeptics forum?

What we all clearly and outspokenly believe is that the death of your brother left an emotional hole in you that you chose to fill with a made up belief. The kindest of us will hope that you will see the error of your ways before your own death.

If you saw your brothers death in a painting five years before he was murdered then why did you not warn him? I don't mean to attack you, but you may have built a complex system of guilt and should seek professional counseling.

- - -

One way to perceive the truth is to be ready to disprove one's own evidence. I am ready for this, always, and perhaps this constitutes one reason why I am here. There may be other persons here than skeptics, and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information. And where would skeptics be if it were not for people like me to take a stand ?

I am a profesional counsellor myself. My ideomotor art is a result of hundreds of natural trance and mechanically trance induced sessions, laying out a complexity of psychological information before you that pertains to all apects of pcychotherapy: regression, reincarnation and transgression...

I am not suffering from the hole you mention. There is no pathology. But what is there is plain to see: information manifested from an interactive proces and conscious-subconscious reality that is as real as the fingernails on your fingers.

The ideomotor effects often manifest after a traumatic experience.
In my case, I know that there has been a very strong pull on the physical and mental system years prior to the actual brake-through of ideomotor manifestions. Before that, ideomtoric force was latently present, physically noticeable, but not clearly expressing itself as such.

This I cannot explain. Some obscure force within me, that I knew as intelligent and speaking from behind the veils of physical death, or the other side, directed me to creatively express images that were vital to express, leading up to the painting that I made depicting the awkward burrial scene of my brother.

That painting did not point my brother out specifically. I was only 21 years old when I made that painting and subsequently seeked guidance in the adult world. I went to many, many people showing that painting. Artists, scientific people, parapsychologists, you name it. Without an exception, everyone told me about the possible representations of my own subconscious mind, which was already clear to me. No one told me that this could be an image pertaining to the future. And today this is no different.

I wish not that I could have known what I know today resulting in the ability to warn my brother. The future is an illusion, as time is an illusion. Things that happen will happen regardless. And, how do you warn someone about something that is to happen in the future anyway? People will think you are nuts when you do that, skeptics should know that.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster
I wish not that I could have known what I know today resulting in the ability to warn my brother. The future is an illusion, as time is an illusion. Things that happen will happen regardless. And, how do you warn someone about something that is to happen in the future anyway? People will think you are nuts when you do that, skeptics should know that.

Rgds.,
Aster. [/B]


If you can prove, or even provide a valid argument, that time is an illusion then I will be eternally grateful.

Patiently waiting,

-Rusty the boy robot.

[Earthborn]

One way to perceive the truth is to be ready to disprove one's own evidence. I am ready for this, always, and perhaps this constitutes one reason why I am here.Good! With an attitude like that skeptics will no doubt respect you, except for a few jerks.There may be other persons here than skepticsThere are!and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information.Very possible. Provided that the information is accompanied with evidence.But what is there is plain to see: information manifested from an interactive proces and conscious-subconscious reality that is as real as the fingernails on your fingers.No one is disputing that. What is at stake here is whether this 'interactive process' is something extraordinary or supernatural and doesn't have any ordinary and boring explaination.This I cannot explain. Some obscure force within me, that I knew as intelligent and speaking from behind the veils of physical death, or the other side, directed me to creatively express images that were vital to express, leading up to the painting that I made depicting the awkward burrial scene of my brother.Let me give you another explanation, which is more mundane, with nothing 'from behind the veils of physical death' is involved and tell me whether you think it is possible it could have happened that way...

It is well known by neurologists (people who study the brain and the nervous system) that people can do things without being aware of it or have conscious control over it. There is patients who have minor damage in their brain that causes one of their hands to do things without control and even without them knowing beforehand what it is going to do. Still this hand can do very complex things, because it is still controlled by the brain. This person just isn't aware of it. Now let's assume you have a mild form of this: without you being aware of it, your hand can write and draw, but otherwise you have normal control.
You make many pictures this way and one of them is a strange picture of a grave.
Years later, your brother dies and just by coincidence his grave looks remarkebly like the picture you drew years earlier.

You see, skeptics believe in coincidence. The simple fact that something looks remarkebly like something else does not prove in it self that the two are connected. A remarkeble coincidence is remarkeble, but still coincidence.

To know whether something isn't just coincedence, it needs to be tested. For something to be tested, we need to know exactly what it is that is to be tested.

Suppose I would send you three pictures, by post. Could you 'automatically draw' them, before you have seen them? Could you get at least one reasonably correct?

How about if I had a hundred photo's and I shuffled them like cards... What percentage could you draw in the right order before you see them? All of them? 50% or 25%? A rough estimate is fine.

What if I were to introduce you to a number of people... Could you draw things that had some significant meaning to them and could these people recognize the picture that was made for them if they didn't see you make it?

Or does your gift work in a different way entirely?

[Aster]

Earthborn wrote :

Aster, remember that Randi has a very different definition of what the 'ideomotor effect' is than you apperently do. In Randi's and most skeptic's understanding it is an illusion in dowsing or using a pendulum.
Perhaps to avoid confusion, you should stick with the terms 'automatic writing' and 'automatic drawing'.

=> At the core, mr. Randi's definitions and understandings of the ideomotor effect is no different than what is known from the general consensus. I enjoy reading his statements very much and would go ahead with most of what he's been concluding. One thing I do not agree with is his way to describe the people experiencing or experimenting with ideomotor movement. He calls them victims. I believe this is only correct when directed to people who suffer from self deception. The ideomotor phenomenon is not out to deceive people. Rather it is out to guide people into making the best possible choices. I have gone from automatic drawing and writing to ideomotor because the first terms are to closely related to the spiritist idea, whereas ideomotor is a scientific term from psychology. My work is obviously both as, to my opinion, they're one and the same thing. Are you saying that mr. Randi has never described automatic writing and drawing as a result of the same, ideomotor effect ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you tell us. Can you draw something that you don't know but someone else is able to check whether you got it right? If so, it would be amazing.

=> Okay, but neither do I hear anyone offering to check the fact that I painted a burrial scene with a very clear and specific message or feature about it, something that I didn't know as it happened 4 years later, and tell me I got it right.

If you can only draw things that nobody can check, then most people here would just assume it came from your own fantasy and doesn't exist.

=> This is why so many people believe, and believe at heart; and this is also why so many others will say about those believers that what they believe in doesn't exist. The line between reality and fantasy is thin, very thin. Fantasy may not even exist, like nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is the concept of nothing and the concept of reality. Like you write, truth... etc.

I guess what I really want is to put ideomotor effect on the map, create a wider interest and research in the phenomenon. Most people do not even know the term let alone the definition. Most people who do however are probably the skeptics. At least we know something, and that is that ideomotor effects are real, and trance, altered states of consciousness are real. Now, if these phenomena are real and acceptable, why would the conclusions per definition be a delusion ?

Thanks for your response.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

quote:

and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information.

Very possible. Provided that the information is accompanied with evidence.

Aster:
True. But I feel that there is a need for a new set of rules that constitute what evidence actually is. We all know that what is valid today is no longer valid tomorrow. Science is always one minute late and one dollar short.

The general concept of truth and of reality is often that, when you cannot sense what a subject senses, it cannot possibly exist. In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it. The ideomotor effect shows that this construct and mentality is working, but besides the truth and worse, that it has become an impedient conviction amongst non spiritually engaged people and sceptics.

The ideomotor system instantly effectuates spiritual engagement, not to use the word énlightenment”, where the im experience is in every sense enlightening. It’s awakening you into a 6th sense and multidimensional thinking. This spiritual engagement makes you aware of how you have been living your life deprived of this tremendous power and continue to miss out on a possibility to enhance your ‘instinctive’ abilities.

Multatuli writes:
No one is disputing that. What is at stake here is whether this 'interactive process' is something extraordinary or supernatural and doesn't have any ordinary and boring explaination.

Aster:
Cool. That the ideomotor effect exists is irrefutable. Dowsers and inventors of im-driven gadgets are usually not in a state of trance or meditation when they use it. I utilise the combination of trance and evoked ideomotoric movement in plain service of the artform it represents. Perhaps now you start to understand why my art is extraordinary.

Is it supernatural? Obviously. The ideomotor art that I present is such, that if I would willfully want to draw (volition) what I drew ideomotorically, I could not ever do it. That means to me that the combination I utilize enhances my power to communicate. Having done this over one thousand times, I am consciously aware of working with the 6th sense.

Furthermore, the supernatural is an inborn talent residing in every single human being on this earth. We only need to adjust to that idea. Look closely how a baby is 100% ideomotorically intelligent and only looses touch gradually over the years due to the simple that she needs to adapt to her biophyisical body. For this soul, in the here and now, decending into human form is an ascention into material form, but a descention into self-consciousness.

A double blind test would create images of chaos, as opposed to when I use my eyes and see through the drawing. But the process or test to actually draw would never fail.
Is it mystical ? Ooops, you didn’t want to know this.
My art is an example of the extraordinary artform that Ra speaks about in the great book of the dead, in the papyrus of Ani. In my 1999 works, the scribe ANI appeared as the twin brothers. The name of Ra is only known to the person who will be known through this extraordinary art. Well, I do not know the name of Ra but I do know the name of my God. And this name is out 3. One name for every dimension he created us in. Focus in on the three-star and try to see my name, Aster, the name of my next life.

Okay, I will now tell you what is at stake here. First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist. My art is splendid and monumental, my past and future life evidence is overwhelmingly in support of my claims.
I consider ideomotorics in general the way to a revived understanding of the world, of reality, and foremost a bridge to an ancient, forgotten and decensitized sensing mechanism which, once set in motion, will set the ordinary mind on fire.
But is it a good idea to show these drawings to the world ? My art has a tendency to evoke very strong emotions of fear. There is no sense in being afraid for a simple work of art though, now is there ? Ofcourse there is. Art is communication is suggestion is ideomotor effect. And this is what is happening.
Before you consciously understand that you react to what you see in the drawing, there has been something else that made you realize that you are actually reacting to something inside you, merely touched by the external suggestion of the ideomotor drawing.

Fear. The foremost evoked reaction with viewers of my art. And you know what ? It is an ancient and well rooted fear that is, it is the fear that accompanies the cell memories of a reality that speaks of a conscious experience, spiritually symbolised as “dead spirit”. As a dead spirit you live, because life is and remains eternal but in one exception, yet you are dead and an eternal prisoner but in one exception.

Many people, living and walking besides us, are examples of these dead spirits. See, you don’t have to be dead, to be a spirit. And this is what constitutes the ultimate memory of hell. To me it does at least.

So here I present one side of the ideomotor effect. Ideomotorics brings you back to the light, however it is also a voyage through the ultimate darkness.
Multatuli... He is one of them you know... And with him are billions. As much as the universe is teeming with life. And this is what my work shows to the world. Thousands and thousands of dead spirits.

The majority of entities that I see as a result of watching my ideomotor drawings, are dead. But there are entities with me, that guide me and are alive. Alive spirits.

And of course it is all but me. Nevertheless I know there names and I have drawn their pictures too. Not static, but alive pictures of every one of them that had the luck or strength to cling on to me.

Every drawing can be put into a moving picture, an animation of any timelength you decide, but never without supplying new intelligent suggestions to the mind in order evoke even deeper layers of emotions.

By that time, scepsis has defeated it’s own purpose. Believing is no longer an issue. Karma seizes to exist, as does duality. The ultimate goal then, is Harmony. From Harmony will grow a new peace and understanding. And the ideomotor movement will be on full automatic. We live in the 5th dimension of consciousness. This is what I predict for the future of mankind. It won’t take long either.

Last but not least, ideomotorics gives you a sense of self, but without the accompanying ego. Anyway, after me will follow an ever growing number of participants that will support me in the scientific research projects that are presently at hand and the personal experiencing of ideomotorics, with splendid and monumental disclosures in every arena thinkable.
I will not rule out any of your suggestions. I have gone through NDE when I was 5 years old and they electricuted my body to bring me back. After that, 3 weeks of morphine, upto 15 shots a day. God knows how they fried my brain that glorious day J.

I cannot help what sceptics believe. I have a story to tell. There are no coincidences, there are only synchronicities.

Multatuli writes:
Suppose I would send you three pictures, by post. Could you 'automatically draw' them, before you have seen them? Could you get at least one reasonably correct?

Aster:
It sounds a bit boring but we could try. What does it mean if I fail ?

Multatuli:
How about if I had a hundred photo's and I shuffled them like cards... What percentage could you draw in the right order before you see them? All of them? 50% or 25%? A rough estimate is fine.

Aster:
I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?

Multatuli:
What if I were to introduce you to a number of people... Could you draw things that had some significant meaning to them and could these people recognize the picture that was made for them if they didn't see you make it?

Aster:
Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.

Multatuli:
Or does your gift work in a different way entirely?

Aster:
I guess so. My art is simply an expression and a manifestation of the ideomotor movement in the works. As I do this in a trance meditive state anything is possible. Chances are however that what is created through me in the project may not be the will of the controlling autonomous force that ideomotor effect represents. This is always communicated. So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.

Rgds.,
Aster

[Earthborn]

But I feel that there is a need for a new set of rules that constitute what evidence actually is.But don't say that to a skeptic!Science is always one minute late and one dollar short.True, but science is designed to be like that. It is not a weakness, it is one of its strengths. Science is a bit conservative, because it shouldn't throw away proven and tested theories for theories that are still unproven or even untested. This way the best theories survive.In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it.This is not true. Science accepts that many things exist even if they cannot be seen: gravity, electricity, radioactivity... However, only when the effects it has are undeniable.Multatuli writes:My name is not Multatuli. He only wrote the quote in the signature. There is a line above it that seperates my text with my signature. People just like to quote others in their signatures.Dowsers and inventors of im-driven gadgets are usually not in a state of trance or meditation when they use it. I utilise the combination of trance and evoked ideomotoric movement in plain service of the artform it represents.Wait a minute... Does that mean you can dowse too? If so it would be quite easy to test.A double blind test would create images of chaos, as opposed to when I use my eyes and see through the drawing. But the process or test to actually draw would never fail.'Double Blind' does not mean that you must draw you pictures with your eyes closed! It means that an experiment is set up in such away that no one can cheat by signalling the right answers to the person tested, consciously or unconsciously.First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist.Okay, if that is true... What if I gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists, and maybe a few people who pretend to be but can just draw really well, and I let you and them all draw. Then I present all the pictures to a jury of people who will judge the 'splendour' of all the pictures. Does it mean you are chosen as the best?I cannot help what sceptics believe.Skeptics don't all believe the same. In fact there is a wide variety of beliefs among them. 'Skeptic' means only one thing: demanding evidence. Whether they believe something themselves, skeptics often demand evidence that is so undeniable and overwhelming that it even convinces the people who don't believe it.It sounds a bit boring but we could try.Science is often very boring. Boring but meticulous. Usually science only becomes exciting when all this boring work produces evidence for something new and interesting.What does it mean if I fail ?It just means that you fail at that particular test and that you cannot draw a picture before you have seen it.I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?The test is another way to test whether you are able to draw a picture without having seen it. The first test was very simple but not conclusive, because you could get one of the pictures right by 'accident': someone who is not a gifted ideomotor artist but is asked to draw a picture, could make a picture that looks like one of the pictures I send them.
This second test is more elaborate because it requires you to draw many pictures. However, with so many pictures the chances are greater that you get a few of them right by accident. This is why you are supposed to get the right in the right order. Could you do that?Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.I would introduce them to you, because you are supposed to draw a picture for that person specifically. The question is then whether these people can recognize what picture is made specifically for them.
If you think that it would be easier to do, if you do not know the person, it could also be done that these people sit in a room next to you while you draw the picture for them. It makes no real difference for the evaluation of the test. Could you do it?So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.True, but you don't have to do a perfect job. All that is required in this test is that enough people can recognize their own picture to show that there really is something to the pictures and they are not just guessing which one is made for them.

(Btw: If your first language is Dutch and it would be easier for you to communicate in Dutch, you can click the PM icon to give me a personal message.)

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.


Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is.

So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

[Aster]

Quote: In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it
This is not true. Science accepts that many things exist even if they cannot be seen: gravity, electricity, radioactivity... However, only when the effects it has are undeniable.
Aster: I did not mean ‘see’ in a literal way. The undeniable effects it has... brings this to mind: As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, that the body is felt to be moved as opposed to you moving your body, is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (as suggestions can both be internal as external) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ? As external suggestions (representations of visual, auditive, kinesthetic and olfactor/gustator communciations) can be made to the mind, why is it so far off to assume that they could be the source of some indeomotor effects ? And if an external suggestion may include telepathic communication, why then would it be so far off to expect that this communication may originate from dimensions of consciousness we are not equipped to sense other than by means of bridging our conscious mind to the oracle well of our subconscious mind?
My name is not Multatuli. He only wrote the quote in the signature. There is a line above it that seperates my text with my signature. People just like to quote others in their signatures.
Aster: I appologize.
Wait a minute... Does that mean you can dowse too? If so it would be quite easy to test.
Aster: You know, I have never tried it, but I surely assume that I can, and so can you. There is not much to it. Dowsing does not require an altered state of consciousness in order to have the rods move. It does require a certain sesitive perception though, by which the dowser is attuned or focussed on the answer to the question at stake. The process of dowsing is fairly similar to using the pendulum and other means which utilises an ideomotor movement. I have used the pendulum faily often and in my practice of hypnotherapy I sometimes use ideomotor questioning and ideomotor finger signalling, which is a similar project. In comparison to the superfast automatic drawing ideomotor techniques, automatic writing, using the pendulum, finger signalling and using the ouija board in order to communcate are extremely slow processes
'Double Blind' does not mean that you must draw you pictures with your eyes closed! It means that an experiment is set up in such away that no one can cheat by signalling the right answers to the person tested, consciously or unconsciously.
Aster: I see. Shows you what I know...
Quote : First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist.
Okay, if that is true... What if I gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists, and maybe a few people who pretend to be but can just draw really well, and I let you and them all draw. Then I present all the pictures to a jury of people who will judge the 'splendour' of all the pictures. Does it mean you are chosen as the best?
Aster: I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists. I have a website up since 1996 which has been visited by approximately 25.000 people. Only a very few people contacted me with similar experiences, like automatic writing. But people with well developed automatic drawing experiences have failed to contact me up to now. In the past, we know that artists like Breton, Masson and Salvador Dali and Austin Osman Spare have experimented with ideomotor writing and drawing. But compared with their results, my work by far exceeds in quality and quantity.
Quote : I cannot help what sceptics believe.
Skeptics don't all believe the same. In fact there is a wide variety of beliefs among them. 'Skeptic' means only one thing: demanding evidence. Whether they believe something themselves, skeptics often demand evidence that is so undeniable and overwhelming that it even convinces the people who don't believe it.
Aster : Okay. So the evidence I present in relation to ideomotor experiencing is undisputed by skeptics. The fact that I claim that external suggestions can be part of the cause for my ideomotor drawing and writing is probably acceptable too. But where I claim that my drawings are a result of spiritual communication, this is where it gets difficult.
Quote : It sounds a bit boring but we could try
Science is often very boring. Boring but meticulous. Usually science only becomes exciting when all this boring work produces evidence for something new and interesting.
Aster : I wholeheartedly agree. This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SIS
Quote : What does it mean if I fail ?
It just means that you fail at that particular test and that you cannot draw a picture before you have seen it.
Aster: : And I assume that with ‘seeing’ you mean visualising an image by using the eyes. Ideomotor drawing is more following the mental representations of the movement in the mind rather than seeing that what develops on the paper while drawing it. I often have my eyes closed. No drawing ever develops by ‘seeing’ a mental representation of the image I am drawing, let alone that I draw something that I have actually seen with my own eyes before. The latter process is or can be influencing the final result though. And this is particularly interesting because the lines that are drawn often offers a distinct form by which the conscious self (me, the metaperson watching what is drawn through me) is expecting the lines to continue. Yet, the ideomotor movement goes it’s own way and draws differently and often against my own will, that represents another form, namely that of the expected image.

I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen. I am not making any but one claim to such an ability. Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect. This would be more complex, but in the end it serves the same goal.
Quote : I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?
The test is another way to test whether you are able to draw a picture without having seen it. The first test was very simple but not conclusive, because you could get one of the pictures right by 'accident': someone who is not a gifted ideomotor artist but is asked to draw a picture, could make a picture that looks like one of the pictures I send them.

This second test is more elaborate because it requires you to draw many pictures. However, with so many pictures the chances are greater that you get a few of them right by accident. This is why you are supposed to get the right in the right order. Could you do that?
Aster : Again, I don’t know. When I think of it, a voice in me says no. So I assume that I cannot. But I am willing to try this or some other test you offer, provided that we could come up with a form and terminology that What I do know is that there is no question of coïncidence. Synchronicity supposes that there is a good reason or a distinct cause that prevents people not to be able to perform the tests you offer.
Quote : Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.
I would introduce them to you, because you are supposed to draw a picture for that person specifically. The question is then whether these people can recognize what picture is made specifically for them.
If you think that it would be easier to do, if you do not know the person, it could also be done that these people sit in a room next to you while you draw the picture for them. It makes no real difference for the evaluation of the test. Could you do it?

Aster : Well, that stands to reason. I feel this form of a test seems the most appealing. It feels a little bit like psychometrics. Why don’t we do a test on the basis of a photograph of you ?
Quote : So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.
True, but you don't have to do a perfect job. All that is required in this test is that enough people can recognize their own picture to show that there really is something to the pictures and they are not just guessing which one is made for them.

Aster : Allright, but with one remark. You see, most ideomotor or automatic drawing I have seen look like fairly simple drawings. My work is complex and the complexity makes it far more difficult to analise. I would have to ask my subconscious to draw me information pertaining to the people shown to me in simple format in order to cocreate a clear recognisable image of information. I have never done that before.

(Btw: If your first language is Dutch and it would be easier for you to communicate in Dutch, you can click the PM icon to give me a personal message.)
Aster: I have done this.

Regards,
Aster.

[Aster]

Rusty wrote:

Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is. So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

I am not making any claims that I can predict the future in any way, let’s not make a mistake about this. Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing. To assume that the example I give is but an example of coíncidence is not positively constructive. In another time, life or culture the assesment regarding the evidence I offer would be such, that this experience in fact could be considered acceptable supporting evidence, however perhaps not conclusive, whereas I opt that the assumption of my experience being a coïncidence should be supported by evidence too. Again, in my book coïncidence do not exist, only synchronicities, which makes it impossible to just set aside.

The fact that I work with the ideomotor effect in an altered state of consciousness clouds the information in a way that the release of information and communication with other parts of the self is probably due to the trance experience of which the ideomotor movement is an effect. Trance experiencing connects ordinary awareness to that of various psychological meta positions eg. in dissociated self, overself or higher self, as in spirits and other entities, partitians of the psyche or personality and not to forget cosmic entities or extraterrestrials. None of this is considered supernatural by me when I am not in a trance. Moreover, to me, prediciting the future is not supernatural either. It is quite another thing when I am in touch with the ideomotor force. It is then apparent that I am communicating with the above presenses, which, when true, would be supernatural.

In any case, it does require the latent mental ability to bridge parts of consciousness that otherwise remain dorment or ‘disconnected’. I support the idea that future, past and present are happening all at once. Lively attests from clients in the field of regression and reïncarnation therapy support the existence of memories of past and past life experiences. I strongly support the idea that the same results are achieved doing progressive (para)psychological research, meaning the discovery of what ‘lies ahead’ rather than what is considered past and how this may influence our life in the supposed here and now.

In this respect I see time as an illusion.
Aster.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Aster
Rusty wrote:

Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is. So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

I am not making any claims that I can predict the future in any way, let’s not make a mistake about this. Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing. To assume that the example I give is but an example of coíncidence is not positively constructive. In another time, life or culture the assesment regarding the evidence I offer would be such, that this experience in fact could be considered acceptable supporting evidence, however perhaps not conclusive, whereas I opt that the assumption of my experience being a coïncidence should be supported by evidence too. Again, in my book coïncidence do not exist, only synchronicities, which makes it impossible to just set aside.

The fact that I work with the ideomotor effect in an altered state of consciousness clouds the information in a way that the release of information and communication with other parts of the self is probably due to the trance experience of which the ideomotor movement is an effect. Trance experiencing connects ordinary awareness to that of various psychological meta positions eg. in dissociated self, overself or higher self, as in spirits and other entities, partitians of the psyche or personality and not to forget cosmic entities or extraterrestrials. None of this is considered supernatural by me when I am not in a trance. Moreover, to me, prediciting the future is not supernatural either. It is quite another thing when I am in touch with the ideomotor force. It is then apparent that I am communicating with the above presenses, which, when true, would be supernatural.

In any case, it does require the latent mental ability to bridge parts of consciousness that otherwise remain dorment or ‘disconnected’. I support the idea that future, past and present are happening all at once. Lively attests from clients in the field of regression and reïncarnation therapy support the existence of memories of past and past life experiences. I strongly support the idea that the same results are achieved doing progressive (para)psychological research, meaning the discovery of what ‘lies ahead’ rather than what is considered past and how this may influence our life in the supposed here and now.

In this respect I see time as an illusion.
Aster.


This post elucidates Randi's frequent problem of identifying challengers' claims.


"Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing."

Ummm.................yeah, so what is your claim in a couple of sentences? That you have predicted the future in the past, which could also be the present???

Good Luck.

[Earthborn]

SFB, Aster told me in a pm that s/he's not after the money and is only hear for 'constructive criticism by skeptics'. We can give that, can't we?

Aster, please try to figure out how quoting works, because your posts are pretty hard to read like this.As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, (snip), is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (snip) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ?No, that is not safe to say. The ideomotor effect is undeniable effect, however it is not clear to anyone (except the person experiencing it) that it is an external force. If I would look at you draw automatically, there is no way I can see whether you are just drawing or forced by an external force to draw. Perhaps you have other behavior as well, that isn't common for someone who draws pictures, but there is no way for me to be sure you are faking those. Even if I trust you wouldn't do that, it is no proof that you don't.You know, I have never tried it, but I surely assume that I can, and so can you. There is not much to it. Dowsing does not require an altered state of consciousness in order to have the rods move.Of course not. Nobody ever said it is hard to move the rod. In fact it is far too easy so someone can even fake dowsing: moving the rod on purpose.The process of dowsing is fairly similar to using the pendulum and other means which utilises an ideomotor movement.Yes, it is. Using a pendulum is very similar. If you prefer using a pendulum instead of a dowsing rod, than that's fine by me. Makes no real difference.It does require a certain sesitive perception though, by which the dowser is attuned or focussed on the answer to the question at stake.You do realize that there have many dowsers who were tested by JREF (Randi and scientists) and they all failed at the simplest tests, don't you? And they were all very much convinced that they had that 'certain perception'.I see. Shows you what I know...No, biggy. You can't know everything.
But if you want to have constructive conversations with skeptics, I think it is time to learn about that.

Suppose there is someone who says that he can read minds. To prove it to others, he let's a friend throw a die (dobbelsteen). The friend looks at the number that comes up and concentrates on it. He doesn't show it to the mindreader of course. He the asks the mindreader to read his mind and figure out what number came up.

Friend: "So, you'll never guess this!"
Mindreader (after intense oncentration): "1"
Friend: "Wow, correct."

The audience is intrigued, but guessing right once isn't very spectacular. The friend throws again.

Friend: "After this warming up, I want to see a real result!"
Mindreader: "5"
Friend: "Spectacular!"

Now the audience is spellbound. The assistant throws again.

Friend: "Undoubtedly you'll get this one correct, too."
Mindreader: "2"
Friend: "Right!"

Another throw of the die.

Friend: "You better get this one too, or people will lose faith in you."
Mindreader: "6"
Friend: "Yes, people... He got that one right as well!"

Would you be impressed by such a performance? Would you believe the mindreader could really read the mind of his friend? Many people would. But there is a really simple trick! The mindreader and his friend have used a code. In this case 'sunday'. That word has letters that are all different and there are exactly 6 of them. The friend threw the die, and when it came up with 1 he started his sentence with a letter 's', when it comes up 2 he starts with a 'u', '3' n, '4' d, 5 'a' and 6 'y'. The mindreader doesn't have to read minds, because his friend simply tells him the answer. His intens concentration is just acting!

This is one of the reasons why 'blinding' is important in paranormal research: you don't want someone around just blatently telling the testsubject all the answers. The easiest and surest way to make sure nobody is signalling the right answers is by making sure the people who know the right answers aren't in the neighbourhood of the testsubject.

But there is another reason why blinding is important. I'm sure you know those consumer programmes (like KASSA) where they test products on quality and or taste. In almost all cases they make sure the people who test the products don't know which procdut they are testing. This is because people can be influenced by what they know about a product. If they know it is an expensive product they expect it to be better than a cheap one. That can influence how they judge the quality the product in an unfair way.

In the 4th section of this column by Randi you can read about a fun situation where something like this happens, in the case of dowsing: http://www.randi.org/jr/030102.html

This teaches us that even iif t seems to the person involved like it is an autonomous effect, that is not consciously controlled, it can still be affected by what you know and expect. That's something you should be aware of while dowsing, using a pendulum or automatic drawing. The fact that it feels to you like it happens on its own, doesn't mean that it isn't you who does it.

Here's a simple experiment you can do at home to test whether you can dowse or use a pendulum:

Take 10 teacups, or buckets or whatever (teacups is easiest) and
an object that fits under it and you are sure of you can find by dowsing for it (or moving a pendulum over it).

Ask a friend to place the teacups on the table, shuffle them around a bit and let him/her place the object under the cup.
Now try to find it with your pendulum or dowsing rod or whatever.
Repeat it a few times. Could you find them? Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong.

Now repeat the same experiment, but now we use a 'blinding' procedure. Now your friend shuffles the teacups and puts the object under one of the cups while you are in another room and can't see in happening! Get back in the room and try to find the object with your pendulum. Try not to look at your friend for clues or approving nods, that's cheating. Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong. This was a 'single blind experiment'

Now try it another time. Not only are you out of the room when your friend hides the object, this time your friend goes out of the room when you go inside, so you two are never together and it is impossible for your friend to give you any clues, consciously, or uncousciously. To be really fair, you could use a third friend who waited outside the room with you, and goes in with you to make sure you don't cheat by lifting one of the teacups. Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong. Then you have performed a 'double blind experiment'

Pretty simple and obvious isn't it? Now if you do equally well in all three, it means that you have a paranormal gift. If you did best in the first experiment, a bit worse in the second and a bit more worse in the third then what you know has a large influence on what you choose, even with ideomotor effect. If you performed great in the first, lousy in the second and got almost nothing right in the third, then the pendulum is worthless and you have no gift for using it at all, it was just influenced by what you already know.

If you decide to actually perform such a test, I can write a computerprogram for you that you can use to record all the answers and check how many you got right and then calculate how well you did. Experiments like this require a bit of statistics and letting a computer take care of it all might come in handy.I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists.That's why I said I would find people who can draw well and can fake being ideomotor artist. Or can your work only be compared with other ideomotor artists and you expect fakers might be better at drawing?

Remember that many of the experiments I propose are to try to understand what you think you are actually capable of. The experiments might not take place, but if you can truthfully explain how you think you will perform in them, it helps me better in understanding you and your gift. The teacup experiment I outlines above is simple and you can do it at home and it would be interesting if you chose to try it, but of course getting a bunch of artists and a jury together and to judge your work on its splendour might be a little bit more difficult.Okay. So the evidence I present in relation to ideomotor experiencing is undisputed by skeptics. The fact that I claim that external suggestions can be part of the cause for my ideomotor drawing and writing is probably acceptable too. But where I claim that my drawings are a result of spiritual communication, this is where it gets difficult.Exactly! Critical thinking isn't that, is it?This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SISMaybe you should give us a link or something so people can see what that research is all about...And I assume that with ‘seeing’ you mean visualising an image by using the eyes.Yes, that's right.I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen.Correct. If you can do that, it is something very special and paranormal and you can get a million dollars. If you can only draw what can be seen, or things you can fantasize, then that is not so special and certianly not paranormal and you can't get a million dollars. It's that simple.Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect.Yes, perhaps I could. But I need to know what you think you can do, how often you can do it under what circumstances. That's why I came up with all the other experiment, to find out what you think you can do.
The only way to find out whether you can actually do them, is to perform such an experiment.When I think of it, a voice in me says no. So I assume that I cannot. But I am willing to try this or some other test you offerI don't think there is much point in trying an experiment you expect to fail in. You should only try an experiment you are very sure of that you can succeed.Well, that stands to reason. I feel this form of a test seems the most appealing. It feels a little bit like psychometrics.Yes, it is. This is very similar to how Randi would test a psychometric/psychometrician.. whatever it is called. Why don’t we do a test on the basis of a photograph of you ?The problem with that is that you might pick up clues from the photograph itself. And it would be just one test of one photo. If we were to perform this test, we should use more than one person, something like 10 or something, and let them try to find the drawing that they feel is most likely made for them.

Remember however that this can be a difficult test. A while ago we had an astrologer here who tried a similar test. He had to make horoscopes for ten people based on their birthdates and times and people had to choose which horoscope best fitted their character (without knowing of course which one was made for them). If enough people could choose their own horoscope based on the character analysis then he would have confirmed that he could create an accurate analysis.
He was a good sport and went along fine with the experiment however, he failed. And admitted it.
He later told us that when he started to make the analyses, he would fail, because he had great difficulty in making them all different enough to be recognizable, while at the same time accurately following the patterns he calculated in the planets. The problem with these things is often that people are all so similar that one thing can mean something significant to many people!
(Randi often demonstrates this by giving many people a horoscope and asking them how accurate it is. Most people will describe it as very accurate even when it is the exact same horoscope for all of them!).

You will be faced with a similar problem should you try a test like this, because you might make drawings that seem very significant to many people. Some of the images might be recognizable to more than one person.I would have to ask my subconscious to draw me information pertaining to the people shown to me in simple format in order to cocreate a clear recognisable image of information. I have never done that before.Okay. Remember that it isn't useful to try to do a complex experiment if you don't feel confident you might succeed in it. The experiments I propose don't have to happen, they are meant more to try to figure out what you think you can and cannot do.
If you can think of other experiments yourself or changes to experiments I proposed, that might make you feel more confident in succeeding don't hesitate to propose them.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Earthborn
SFB, Aster told me in a pm that s/he's not after the money and is only hear for 'constructive criticism by skeptics'. We can give that, can't we?


Earthborn:

Well you did a pretty good job above. I just would like to know what Aster is claiming to be able to achieve that smacks of the paranormal. But I want a straightforward answer in about one to three sentences. I don't like wading through his/her vague language. Is this not "constructive" criticism? I am asking for clarification. Do you understand what Aster is claiming? It does not matter that money is not at issue.

[Earthborn]

But I want a straightforward answer in about one to three sentences. (snip) Is this not "constructive" criticism? I am asking for clarification.I guess so, however I think it is unreasonable to exepct a straightforward answer in three sentences. I don't think Aster has an idea of this him/herself in such a clear and succinct way. S/he is on a bit different level of thinking than most skeptics. The best way to figure out what is claimed is by actually wading through the 'vague' language and asking for clarification at specific points. This is what I do when I propose experiment and ask whether Aster could perform them or not.Do you understand what Aster is claiming?I think I'm starting to understand (Aster, don't hesitate to correct me when you think I'm wrong, but understand that I'm trying to translate it into a languge a skeptic may understand!):
I think what Aster is saying is that s/he can draw images by being guided by a sort of mystic force, and there is some of Aster's own thoughts that are projected in them, sometimes things from the future or of things s/he cannot know bleed through and end up as pictures on paper. Apperently this is not much a controllable process and this force works somewhat erratic and unpredictable so it is difficult to test.
I suppose that is the claim just a couple of sentences. I hope I got it right. :)

Notice that Aster is quite clear about wanting feedback from skeptics and if you manage to cope with the long-winded language you can see that s/he is actually very helpful in trying to answer direct questions, even responding quite rationally to propositions of experiments.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think what Aster is saying is that s/he can draw images by being guided by a sort of mystic force, and there is some of Aster's own thoughts that are projected in them, sometimes things from the future or of things s/he cannot know bleed through and end up as pictures on paper.

Aster?

[Skeptical Greg]

Yalel, is that you?

[Aster]

http://cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

Quote : Ummm.................yeah, so what is your claim in a couple of sentences? That you have predicted the future in the past, which could also be the present ???

Look, I will thoroughly think about what my claim is and will soon write that down in a clear, short and sweet manner. I also want to appologize for my LBS style of writing that troubles others. I see where this may have lead to some annoyment. I will try to do better.

Rgds., Aster.

[Aster]

As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, (snip), is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (snip) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ?

Quote : No, that is not safe to say. The ideomotor effect is undeniable effect, however it is not clear to anyone (except the person experiencing it) that it is an external force.

Besides the person experiencing ideomotor effect, there are assertions of scientists studying the phenomenon and the people experiencing it, which often includes themselves.

The force behind the ideomotor movement is the idea or thought; in abstract, religious or spiritual terms, the word. The idea, thought or word, is the suggestion that implements autonomous, automatic movement. These suggestions can be internal as well as external. There is no reason to assume the exclusion of either one.

Quote : If I would look at you draw automatically, there is no way I can see whether you are just drawing or forced by an external force to draw. Perhaps you have other behavior as well, that isn't common for someone who draws pictures, but there is no way for me to be sure you are faking those. Even if I trust you wouldn't do that, it is no proof that you don't.

That says something about you, but I do see your point. I draw in a manner that isn’t common for drawing, but that wouldn’t prove anything about external input to a skeptic.

In my opinion, the skeptic has to be convinced about the fact that, within the total makeup of his system, his conscious awareness may appear as a ‘one in one’; with ideomotor movement it becomes ‘two in one’. In trance, that bright and inner voice that you may turn to when you are in trouble and ask for guidance or help, manifests with a motor effect. The ‘one in one’ is the selfconscious you, and the ‘two in one’ is that part of you, plus the autonomous automatic subconscious self. The autonomous self is you, but you may not be aware of it; The other side, is what I call it, clearly appears to have a mind, a will and a movement of it’s own.

You know, when experiencing ideomotor drawing split conscious, you are able to feel two currents of movement which at play simultaniously. One that you know as your own, and one that you don’t know other than as this strange something, that appears not to be you.

These forces and their separate movements at first appear to be in duality with each other; rather, appear to be each others opposites. You will sense that there is a communication between them. There is a sense of polarity about them. Then, when your state of conscious allows this, the ideomotor movement seems to ‘brake away’ from the volitile movement, the movement of your will. The game is on. Next, you make a conscious descision that allows you to surrender your will to that of the ideomotor movement, go along with it, give up your own will to something that feels like an external entity taking part of your body.

Quote : Of course not. Nobody ever said it is hard to move the rod. In fact it is far too easy so someone can even fake dowsing: moving the rod on purpose.

Well okay, but the ideomotor graphic is not at all easy to fake, but everything can be learned. In order to copy a genuine ideomotor response, just as in dowsing, one needs a lot of practice.

quote: You do realize that there have many dowsers who were tested by JREF (Randi and scientists) and they all failed at the simplest tests, don't you? And they were all very much convinced that they had that 'certain perception'.

I know. And it’s not difficult to understand why they fail. Dowsers utilise the ideomotor movement in favor of paranormal abilities they claim to posess. To them, the fact that the ideomotor effect is present constitutes their evidence. But the ideomotor effect neither proves nor disproves having a supernatural talent. Claimants fail, not because the ideomotor process fails them but because they fail the ideomotor process. Dowsers are often no competent analysts of the phenomenon either, rather they are mediums, or as Randi says, victims.

I do not know exactly how Randi’s tests are performed, but I have learned that the results of my personal experiments vary as much as the parameters (any in- and external circumstance = suggestions) change. The supernatural mind adapts automatically - without any effort from the claimants part - to the ever changing environment in which the dowsing is performed, just because the body-mind-spirit system is naturally geared this way. I agree with Randi when he writes, try the test yourself before you apply...

I am convinced that I have that certain perception. But you do to. You may not be conscious of it. But if you were, you would see that there is no supernatural thing going on there, it is just a latent life force within us, awaiting to be released. In that way similar to Kundalini. Also latent. Awaiting to be released...
It is merely heavenly.

Quote : Would you be impressed by such a performance?

Yes.

Would you believe the mindreader could really read the mind of his friend?

No.

This is one of the reasons why 'blinding' is important in paranormal research: you don't want someone around just blatently telling the testsubject all the answers. The easiest and surest way to make sure nobody is signalling the right answers is by making sure the people who know the right answers aren't in the neighbourhood of the testsubject.

I understand.

In the 4th section of this column by Randi you can read about a fun situation where something like this happens, in the case of dowsing: http://www.randi.org/jr/030102.html

I am fully aware of the role personal expectations play. My expectations can be influenced by what I know and what I expect and know doés have an influence on the autonomous effect.

The influence is such that the autonomous force allows for this personal input and immediately equates an answer which results in movement. It is like instant adaptation to a change of parameters.

The experience is such that you may be surprised which result the autonomous force will be showing you. It can either follow the expectation or your knowledge influencing it, or it can totally bypass expectations and continue it’s very own way.

The instream of personal information coinciding with whatever choice the autonomous force makes can even be accompanied by an obscure mental asset explaining the situation. In other words, you are made clear why the other side made such a choice. All is geared to make you understand one thing. In order to completely release the ideomotor effect, you have to surrender to it, physically and mentally.

If you decide to actually perform such a test, I can write a computerprogram for you that you can use to record all the answers and check how many you got right and then calculate how well you did. Experiments like this require a bit of statistics and letting a computer take care of it all might come in handy.

Your offer is very much appreciated! In return, I could perhaps interest you in cooperating with us, Vladimir Sivitsky Ph.D, of IHEI, and myself, and study the ideomotor effect.

I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists.

That's why I said I would find people who can draw well and can fake being ideomotor artist. Or can your work only be compared with other ideomotor artists and you expect fakers might be better at drawing ?

There are many artists that draw or paint unaware of utilising ideomotor movement. When an artist makes his best work he often says, it went so easy, it was a stream, almost on automatic. My bet is that they are experiencing mild forms of ideomotor effects.

There are as many artists who create in a trance or altered state of consciousness and don’t recognize ideomotor effects. This is because ideomotor effects and altered states of conscious are both a natural phenomenon, and, whatever is natural and often performed may go unnoticed as part of an automatic subconscious process. Just like moving one leg before the other when you walk.

Comes to mind what Barett L. Dorko writes : Their brushstrokes, ‘a result of movements especially complex and meaningful without volition, are an important aspect of our ability to communicate.’

Dorko also claims that ‘the purpose of ideomotor movement is instinctive in origin and nescessary for normal functioning.’ Having said that, there seems to be no need to fake the ideomotor process; it won’t disprove anything.

Experts in drawing may be able to fake ideomotor drawing. But in order to perform such a test, I opt that these fakers should not be made aware of what an original idemotor drawing looks like and how the ideomotor artist makes his moves.

Only after thorougly studying the ideomotor process, faking may become a success. Yet, without the ideomotor effect actually being utilised by the faker, I do not see how he can create a drawing that is of better quality than the drawings made through ideomotor movement. To make you understand this, I would have to explain what the specific qualities of an ideomotor drawing are.

Remember that many of the experiments I propose are to try to understand what you think you are actually capable of. The experiments might not take place, but if you can truthfully explain how you think you will perform in them, it helps me better in understanding you and your gift. The teacup experiment I outlines above is simple and you can do it at home and it would be interesting if you chose to try it, but of course getting a bunch of artists and a jury together and to judge your work on its splendour might be a little bit more difficult.

I see your point in offering these experiments and I am in favor of cooperation. No starting off on the wrong foot...

This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SIS

Maybe you should give us a link or something so people can see what that research is all about...

Sure : IHEI research : http://www.aster-media.nl/ihei.html
ISMTE : http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISMTE_Display.asp?DID=1
SIS : http:// www.ifmo.ru

I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen.

Correct. If you can do that, it is something very special and paranormal and you can get a million dollars. If you can only draw what can be seen, or things you can fantasize, then that is not so special and certianly not paranormal and you can't get a million dollars. It's that simple.

Of course. What about when my claim is not that I could do this repeatedly or upon request, but that what I offer is psychological and parapsychological evidence supporting the fact that, at least on one specific occasion, I could. See, if or when my claim is partly accepted as a parapsychological occasion, this would sign to millions of so called deluted people that their belief is justified and that such special things áre in fact possible.

Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect

Yes, perhaps I could. But I need to know what you think you can do, how often you can do it under what circumstances. That's why I came up with all the other experiment, to find out what you think you can do. The only way to find out whether you can actually do them, is to perform such an experiment.

Okay, I understand and I will see how I can do these experiments. Are you in the research business ? You write of testing other people. Was this in cooperation with JREF or are you speaking about your own institution ? What comes to mind is whether or not mr. Randi has ever done an experiment that involved ideomotor effect. Can you tell me this ?

The problem with that is that you might pick up clues from the photograph itself. And it would be just one test of one photo. If we were to perform this test, we should use more than one person, something like 10 or something, and let them try to find the drawing that they feel is most likely made for them.

That is the case now; I don't work with the person in mind nor am I a practicing clairvoyant. I don’t even work with me in mind.
I work with nothing in mind. If I would now be asked to focus upon a person for whom I would then create a special ideomotor trance message, I cannot tell you who or what would appear.

Okay. Remember that it isn't useful to try to do a complex experiment if you don't feel confident you might succeed in it. The experiments I propose don't have to happen, they are meant more to try to figure out what you think you can and cannot do. If you can think of other experiments yourself or changes to experiments I proposed, that might make you feel more confident in succeeding don't hesitate to propose them.

It intriques me and I will cooperate.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

I would like to put some pictures up inside my posts.
Can anyone tell me if this is possible ?
I did the IMG thing, but the picture doesn't show.

Along with discussing a particular ideomotor work of art, I could write my claims. It will touch the belief system though, guys!:-)

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Earthborn]

Besides the person experiencing ideomotor effect, there are assertions of scientists studying the phenomenon and the people experiencing it, which often includes themselves.If scientists are studying themselves, it wouldn't be independent and objective research. It could be very interesting, but it wouldn't prove a thing.I draw in a manner that isn't common for drawing, but that wouldn't prove anything about external input to a skeptic.Exactly: it wouldn't prove anything, and that is what we're after here.One that you know as your own, and one that you don't know other than as this strange something, that appears not to be you.Yes, but as I have told you before, this does not mean that it isn't controlled by the exact same brain as your normal conscious movements. In fact it is a well known phenomenon that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.Your offer is very much appreciated! In return, I could perhaps interest you in cooperating with us, Vladimir Sivitsky Ph.D, of IHEI, and myself, and study the ideomotor effect.How did he study you? Did he ever made you do an experiment with the kind of control of the experiments I outlined? Do you mean this guy?SIVITSKY Vladimir Genadiyvich
The candidate of pedagogical sciences. The head of Psychology Chair and the head Creative Laboratory of Experimental Psychology of the International Humanitarian & Economic Institute.
Interests:

Computer psychodiagnostics, sports psychology, ideomotorics, psychoregulation, creation of developing computer games.
http://geni.org.by

Address: 220013, Belarus, Minsk, P.Brovki Street, 22
Tel.: (+ 375-17) 274-24-98, Fax: (+ 375-17) 231-55-27
E-mail: psylab@it.org.byHe doesn't seem very specialized in any field. And his work doesn't appear on any non-Russian sites. Does he speak and write English?

Please explain what kind of experiments he did. Is he convinced that the ideomotor effect is caused by some outside force?To make you understand this, I would have to explain what the specific qualities of an ideomotor drawing are.Please do.Sure : IHEI research : http://www.aster-media.nl/ihei.html
ISMTE : http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISM...play.asp?DID=1
SIS : http:// www.ifmo.ruOuch! You couldn't find anything in English, my Russian is a bit rusty (actually I don't know any Russian at all)?

I used the automatic translation service of Altavista to make at least a little bit sense of it:

Rough translation of Geni.org.ru site:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeni.org.by%2F&lp=ru_en
(If no text appears click reload. Sometimes the text isn't handled properly by the translator. Remember that it is an automatic translation and not very readable and probably not very accurate.)

By browsing around I found this:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeni.org.by%2Fstat%2F3.html
It appears you have had contact with someone in this institute. But I can't see whether you were tested by anyone of them. Perhaps you can explain what kind of experiments were done in a language some of us might even understand. Preferably English, but if you want to it in Dutch, I might be able to translate for people on this board. (But keep it as short as possible, please!)

Rough translation of the IFMO site:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifmo.ru%2F&lp=ru_en
Appears to be a fine technical university. I fail to see the relevance of it when the 'ideomotor effect' is concerned.

The ISMTE thing is fortunately in english:
http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISMTE_Display.asp?DID=3
Appears to be an organization that sells courses and workshops. And people can attend some sort of 'congress' for a stiff fee. This is not a reputable scientific organization. It may be okay what they are trying to sell people, but it cannot be used as an authority on anything. Sorry.Of course. What about when my claim is not that I could do this repeatedly or upon request, but that what I offer is psychological and parapsychological evidence supporting the fact that, at least on one specific occasion, I could.Such a past occurance does not constitute evidence. It already happened when there were no experimental controls in place. And it might very well be pure coincidence.

Remember that you are not the only person in the world who had an experience that seemed very significant to them. I had them too, and I'm certain most skeptics did also. Such things happen to all of us, but they are not proof of anything other than coincidence, people only see significance in hindsight and people tend to see patterns where there none. It could be that they are just interpreting something that has no real significance at all.

Many Muslims believe that miracles are just personal communications from God, and you should keep them to yourself. Who is going to believe you anyway? I rather like this view, as it allows you to keep a special place in your heart for the things that seem of great significance to you, while at the same time you don't start running around claiming miracles with every chance occurance.Okay, I understand and I will see how I can do these experiments.Good!Are you in the research business ?No.You write of testing other people.I did not write about testing other people myself. I can just easily imagine how tests could be performed, but I have no experience performing them. I might not be able to provide any actual test, and certainly no test facilities. Some of the tests however are simple enough to do at how yourself, maybe with the help of a few friends. Anyway, I encourage you to do them (you don't need a russian scientist to oversee it, just carry it out carefully while being honest) before you start any formal test... Just don't start to run aroud telling everyone that it worked and that 'it is now officially approved' because it isn't. Such a test at home is not meant as scientific evidence, but is meant to familiarize yourself with good experiments and trying to figure out for yourself whether you can do certain things or not,What comes to mind is whether or not mr. Randi has ever done an experiment that involved ideomotor effect.Only the many dowsing tests which all miserably failed when people simply could not do what they thought they could do. It probably means that they didn't do a simple test at home, or they would have known...I work with nothing in mind. If I would now be asked to focus upon a person for whom I would then create a special ideomotor trance message, I cannot tell you who or what would appear.In that case, that particular test in no good and it would be wrong to even try it. It would be equivalent with me trying to 'Breakdance'... :)It intriques me and I will cooperate.Well, start with imagining tests you think you could succeed in, and post some of the ideas on the forum for all to see.I did the IMG thing, but the picture doesn't show.Just place the webadres of the picture between the imagetags, like so:
[IMG]http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg[/IMG]

Should work fine, like this:
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg
(You forgot the www.)

Uhm... What is it? Is it appropriate on this forum?
I could write my claims. It will touch the belief system though, guys!:-)Try not to elaborate on how you think it works, just focus on what it is you can actually do. A good way to do it is by imagining experiments yourself and asking yourself whether you would be able to do them. And if those aren't too complicated, try them.

Good experiments are usually where you give yourself a fixed number of choices, like a multiple choice exam, with one good answer for every time you repeat the test. Count the number of times you get something right and also count the number of times you got it wrong. Then, just like the teacher would in for an exam, substract the number of times you would have gotten right by guessing. For instance if you choose between 4 things, substract 25%, for 5 things 20% etc... Then divide the total number of tests by the ones you got right, multiply by 10 and you have a grade like you would get in a Dutch school... Easy to understand.

Suppose you must choose out of 4 items for each test, and you do 20 tests.
Suppose you get 6 right.
You substract what you get by chance: 6 - (1/4 * 6) = 6 - 1.5 = 4.5
Divide by the number of tests: 4.5/20 = 0,225
Multiply by 10: 0,225 * 10 = 2,25
Give yourself a 2+
(For american readers: in the Netherlands schools usually give grades from 0 to 10. Just multiply by another 10 to get a percentage grade.)
Not very impressive, is it? If you get a result like this, you probably just guessed it and got lucky here and there.

The more tests you do, do more accurate you get, which means that if you just guess your grade will be closer to 0. With 20 tests you should get at least a 5 before you can honestly say there is something other than guessing. If you manage to do 1000, getting a 2 could actually mean there is something there! It's just not very accurate, so it can only be found with many tests.

Good luck!

[Aster]

If scientists are studying themselves, it wouldn't be independent and objective research. It could be very interesting, but it wouldn't prove a thing.

No, at best it would be a mix between objective and subjective research. I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.

Carpenter / the skeptics diary : We may not be aware of it, but suggestions can be made to the mind by others or observations. Those suggestions can influence the mind and affect ideomotor behavior. What is purely physiological, however, appears to some to be paranormal.

Externally perceived action may produce an internalized motor program which is available in its turn to be imaged and then expressed by action of the perceiving individual. Action is preceeded by image. That is, visualisation of action provides the structure for the action executed. Perception of external action provides structure for creation of the internal motor program for action. The cirquit is complete.

Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?

In fact it is a well known phenomenon that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.

Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.

How did he study you? Did he ever made you do an experiment with the kind of control of the experiments I outlined? Do you mean this guy?

Yes, SIVITSKY Vladimir Genadiyvich is the man. We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.

He doesn't seem very specialized in any field. And his work doesn't appear on any non-Russian sites. Does he speak and write English?

Yes, rather poorly.

Please explain what kind of experiments he did. Is he convinced that the ideomotor effect is caused by some outside force?

No experiments. I am not saying that the only cause for ideomotor effect is an external force. What I am saying is that both in- as external suggestions can influence the mind, resulting in ideomotor effect. Besides that, I cannot answer for Vladimir; if you want me to forward your questions to him I would be happy to do that. You can also write to him directly : psylab@it.org.by

Ouch! You couldn't find anything in English, my Russian is a bit rusty (actually I don't know any Russian at all)?

Sorry for that. Try www.ifmo.ru/sis. They study spirit through consciousness, I guess is all I wanted to tell you.

Appears to be an organization that sells courses and workshops. And people can attend some sort of 'congress' for a stiff fee. This is not a reputable scientific organization. It may be okay what they are trying to sell people, but it cannot be used as an authority on anything. Sorry.

I am trying to get the Max Planck Institute in Muenchen and the Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology in Bern, Switzerland (which is related with the University of London) interested in my work. Do you view these institutions as reputable scientific organizeations ? And what about the JFK university in California ? The latter rejected my work.

Such a past occurance does not constitute evidence. It already happened when there were no experimental controls in place. And it might very well be pure coincidence.

Rules like this should not deprive testimonial evidence from being scientifically researched or worse, become a part of the pseudoscientific world. The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural. These things just cannot be tested as they are one time experiences. Please remember that you are not talking to a person who is blindly following the aftermath of a single experience. Experiences that feel significant to people might very well be significant and not only to them. What might be significant to others might also prove to be significant for you or me. What happened to me does not happen to most people; in my 8 years of research I have not found one comparable case.

I did not write about testing other people myself.

I see.

Only the many dowsing tests which all miserably failed when people simply could not do what they thought they could do. It probably means that they didn't do a simple test at home, or they would have known...

What I meant was, did mr. Randi ever participate (as subject) in a test involving induced hypnosis or trance and ideomotor effect to learn how results would influence his opinion on the supernatural abilities of man ?

Uhm... What is it? Is it appropriate on this forum?

You are not the first person whose sexual bodies respond to this image. I do not know what constitutes the appropriateness to show pictures like this on this forum. But I cannot help but seeing many symbolic identity pictures added by skeptic people to their posts while signing their messages with odd names. Odd... you’d think that skeptic people would stay close to their own identity. To which reality does this fantasy or expression of alternative identity pertain ?

I have associated this picture with Ima’an. Ima’an is my cosmic guide, a creature that has been with me since early childhood. Ima’an is the foreteller of IAM-, IS-, and ISIS presence experiencing. I believe I drew Ima’an picture first in 1979. In 1994, I created this ideomotor graphic representation of Ima’an. Obviously, the image is part of an original ideomotor drawing complimented with it’s mirror half.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Psiload]

Aster wrote:

I have associated this picture with Ima’an. Ima’an is my cosmic guide, a creature that has been with me since early childhood. Ima’an is the foreteller of IAM-, IS-, and ISIS presence experiencing.

Ima’an? Isn't she married to David Bowie
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg
Whoa! She hit the wall!

[Earthborn]

No, at best it would be a mix between objective and subjective research.No, I don't think it would. I use a few simple definitions for objective/subjective, which I think anyone can agree on:

objective: equally true for everybody
subjective: different for everybody/relies entirely on interpretation.

If a scientist studies him/herself, the result relies completely on their own interpretation and other scientists don't necessarily agree.

Something is only objectively true when both the people who believe in it and the people who don't believe it can perform the exact same tests and get the same result. This is true of many scientific facts, but I'm sure you are well aware that there are many other issues that are still hotly debated and don't yet have an objective answer.I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.That's a bit dependant on what you choose to consider 'proof'. Something may very well be true without objective evidence, but without objective evidence you cannot be sure and you cannot convince someone who doesn't believe it (but is willing to change his/her mind when presented objective evidence).Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?No, because I would raise my arm myself when being told to do that.Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.So you are saying that your ideomotor art may come from your brain, but your normal everyday activities are not? I would think the brain has an enormous influence on both.We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.That's a real pity. It means that his research is not very remarkeable.Yes, rather poorly.Well, that's what I was afraid of. I think it isn't such a big deal though, since I now know that he didn't do any real tests.I am trying to get the Max Planck Institute in Muenchen and the Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology in Bern, Switzerland (which is related with the University of London) interested in my work. Do you view these institutions as reputable scientific organizeations ? And what about the JFK university in California ? The latter rejected my work.The 'Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology' doesn't sound like a very scientific Authority to me, but I may be wrong. Max Planck is fine, but I seriously doubt they will take you any more seriously than the JFK University.

To be blunt, I would not consider any organization or person who accepts your ideas unquestioningly as a reputable scientific authority. This is because you don't seem to have formulated your claims yet and you have not done any tests that would indicate that there is anything involved that scientists don't already know. Your work is not yet ready to be taken seriously by science.

Also, I think you take the wrong route. You try to find recognition by the highest of scientific authorities, but you have very little to convince them of anything. It would be better to try to do a few experiments, maybe asking a few people of a local skeptic's group to help you... Start smaller: very little science is done by people with a few revolutionary ideas that immediately convinces the scientific community.Rules like this should not deprive testimonial evidence from being scientifically researched or worse, become a part of the pseudoscientific world.Testimonial evidence can sometimes be used in science, but only when it might lead to evidence that can be checked. For instance, when some people say they have seen a strange beast, scientists can look for it, trying to find footprints or droppings or the beast itself. But when someone tells that something happened to them 20 years ago, there is nothing left to check whether it really happened exactly like that, and therefore it is not scientific evidence.The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural.No, of course not. But because there is no way to check how it happened exactly, there is also no evidence that it was supernatural. There is no proof one way or the other, but since supernatural occurances are very rare or even non-existed, and occurances that people mistake for being supernatural are quite common, most skeptics will assume that it is the latter.
These things just cannot be tested as they are one time experiences.Exactly.What happened to me does not happen to most people; in my 8 years of research I have not found one comparable case.I think that highly depends on what you think is 'comparable'. And the fact that it you didn't find anyone with a comparable case is not indicative that it isn't just a random event.What I meant was, did mr. Randi ever participate (as subject) in a test involving induced hypnosis or trance and ideomotor effect to learn how results would influence his opinion on the supernatural abilities of man ?I don't know. Unfortunately JREF does not give much information about the past challenges, and I personally see that as a weakness of the challenge. However we should also realize that for many people who participated, the fact that they lost is such an embarrasment that they probably don't want any information released. It would aid in the fairness of the tests though, and in the showing people that the tests are fair...Obviously, the image is part of an original ideomotor drawing complimented with it’s mirror half. Well, yes. I noticed that it was mirrored. However, the colour seems that of human skin and the fact that mirror images can sometimes create strange shapes I could not determine whether or not it was a part of human anatomy. Please note that ShowMe had to remove his avatar because it looked like something inappropriate, not because it was. The reason was that people should be able to use this site at work, school or library without shame about what it appears they are looking at. Perhaps it would be a better idea to post a scan of the original picture without the colouring or the lighting effect?

The picture is far too small to see what it actually is... Can't you give a link to a larger version?

[zensidhe]

This thread had been fascinating.

Earthborn, you are doing a Great job trying to glean a definitive claim/test from Aster. You have remarkable patients and a great demeanor.

Aster I am very happy to see you picked up on the proper use of quote. I had a look at your art, and while I don't personally believe it constitutes anything paranormal, I find it all interesting to look at. (I may not know art, but I know what I like.)

Anyway, keep it up guys. I'm enjoying the progression.

[Aster]

Ima’an? Isn't she married to David Bowie

There is Imaan and there is Imaan. Just like the spheres. They are all the same, yet they are different. Not merely the spheres in the mind of the lucid thinker, the dreamer or of the other side, but the spheres of human conscious awareness; a multi dimensional consciousness.

Margaretha wrote through me "Moon and moon and moon". These words may have been set aside by some of you as meaningless. But I treasured those words for twenty years to find out that they are coordinates on what I call the cosmic clock, a representable representation of human consciousness.

Imaan is Bowie's wife indeed, but is it not spelled Iman ? In my drawings there is a lot that points to imaan, unfortunately the carrier of muslim fundamentalist Jihad. There never seemed to be an escape for me there, until I cast that spirit out. Until now, perhaps, with Bush legalizing war kicking Saddam Hussein out of power, and America and England, and the wole world in their following working together towards a new world order, starting at the cradle of religious human culture, Iraq. What I see and read from my drawings is what I see. What you see is quite another thing.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

had a look at your art, and while I don't personally believe it constitutes anything paranormal, I find it all interesting to look at. (I may not know art, but I know what I like.)

You may not know art but now you know Ideomotor art.

"Yet, let it not be thought that a person not an artist may by these means not become one: but those artists who are hampered in expression, who feel limited by the hard conventions of the day and wish for freedom but have not attained to it, these may find in it a power and a liberty elsewhere undiscoverable." Austin Osman Spare

Nothing paranormal about ideomotor art. IM is my work and my work is not guilty of being paranormal until proven quilty.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

Can anyone tell me what these stars are behind some posts giving a rating of some sort ?

Rgds.,

Aster.http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Earthborn]

In my drawings there is a lot that points to imaan, unfortunately the carrier of muslim fundamentalist Jihad.Actually, most muslims understand the word 'imaan' as trust/faith in God.Nothing paranormal about ideomotor art. IM is my work and my work is not guilty of being paranormal until proven quilty.But I'm sure that you wouldn't have come here if you didn't think there was anything paranormal/ supernatural/ metaphysical to it?Can anyone tell me what these stars are behind some posts giving a rating of some sort ?Yes, scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll see a roll down menu titled 'Rate this thread'. There you can choose how much you enjoy it. Choose an option and your vote is calculated with the ovtes of other people and expressed as stars at the top.

[Aster]

Actually, most muslims understand the word 'imaan' as trust/faith in God.
Yes, and unfortunately Jihad is often an essential part of imaan.
But I'm sure that you wouldn't have come here if you didn't think there was anything paranormal/ supernatural/ metaphysical to it?
Obviously. I have been working with parts of self, subconscious mind, presenses of conscious awareness, spirits, cosmic entities etc. Many of these experiences remain part of an inner depth, a methaphysical, spiritual and religious world. I am here to put these experiences 'to the test' and create an audience for ideomotor sensing and movement.
Yes, scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll see a roll down menu titled 'Rate this thread'. There you can choose how much you enjoy it. Choose an option and your vote is calculated with the ovtes of other people and expressed as stars at the top.[
I see, thank you!

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

No, I don't think it would. I use a few simple definitions for objective/subjective, which I think anyone can agree on:
A scientist studying himself provides ‘equally true for everybody’, even when working totally by himself. The mix is this: The scientist within the person represents and protects the objective research and the student within the person represents the subjective research providing an interpretation of results that are different for everybody, thus providing a combination of efforts.

My objective is to be the student; the scientist in me is missing. This is where a partnership with Vladimir and other scientists is relevant to me. And now I am here to seek a skeptic response.
If a scientist studies him/herself, the result relies completely on their own interpretation and other scientists don't necessarily agree.
Okay, what is required to change your view in support of the way I see it ? We can discuss and argue all our life, we can test all our life, but that’s not where solutions are quickly found, nor where new idea’s are formed instantly. Scientists research problems in their minds and bodies, do steep introspective thinking (perhaps even trance meditation) and the best research is often performed in solitude, when asleep! Something is only objectively true when both the people who believe in it and the people who don't believe it can perform the exact same tests and get the same result. This is true of many scientific facts, but I'm sure you are well aware that there are many other issues that are still hotly debated and don't yet have an objective answer.
Yes, like the mental and emotional foundations for psychic awareness- dopamines.
I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.
That's a bit dependant on what you choose to consider 'proof'. Something may very well be true without objective evidence, but without objective evidence you cannot be sure and you cannot convince someone who doesn't believe it (but is willing to change his/her mind when presented objective evidence).
But that is not a problem. Results will be put to the test. When the test is not available we are smart enought to think of one. When the experiment cannot be tested, as in my claim, we design a scientific model of acceptance that accomodates claimes of the supernatural to be accepted by science.
One example of my claims is the definition of my work: These drawings are the key to the formula that links spiritual communication to the science of math.
Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?
No, because I would raise my arm myself when being told to do that.
I won’t deny that it is you who is raising your arm. But what
causes you to raise it ? This is my point. You do not have an
answer for this, nor does mr. Randi, nor does science. It all stops at the ideomotor effect, that mr. Randi short cirquits with the idea of one self.

My claim is that the ideomotor effect is but a tool for action (acts and laws) mediated by the human psyche gouverning the act. The source is and will be unknown as it cannot be known. It can only be experienced and represented.

Experiencing ideomotor movement in your arm will make you realize that the source can be external as well as internal suggestion.
Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.
So you are saying that your ideomotor art may come from your brain, but your normal everyday activities are not? I would think the brain has an enormous influence on both
I see where my answer was not clear. You were saying that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.

I was also once programmed to believe that the brain is responsible for this. But has that been tested and supported by evidence ? And if so, are tests not designed to prove just that ? Where the assumption is in place that there is more to movement that just the brain ?

My ‘Yes’ to your quote is pure habit (that past programming!). I see the senses registered, worked out and processed in the brain, but that what feeds the brain with information is to and from the cellular neurosystem. Every cell is an individual entity, the system is a copy. Every cell is a conscious entity. We are aware of the system, not of the indicidual cell. And that grand collection of cells hosts the force behind ideomotor effect. Our conscious awareness can be raised to cell level. Through cell level we become conscious of how our cells are holographic copies of all that is. Today, we are not enough cell conscious. Not enough ideomotor effect. Our brain does allow, but we tend to restrict our brain to function in ways completely new to us.
We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.
That's a real pity. It means that his research is not very remarkeable.
That is irrelevant now. We know that the path is not easy. Testing will be done sooner or later. We have insufficient financial assets to substantiate laboratory testing. We plan to raise funds through book and artsales, even a movie for the russian market is in the works.
The 'Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology' doesn't sound like a very scientific Authority to me, but I may be wrong. Max Planck is fine, but I seriously doubt they will take you any more seriously than the JFK University.
Thanks for the confidence. JFK gouverns the Susan Seddon Boulet art contest that I asked to compete with. It is a contest between students of JFK. When I’d be studying there I would be able to compete and have a good chance of winning, and get my name up in the world of Art. But hey, I am the alive representation of the external suggestion J and they don’t want that I guess.
To be blunt, I would not consider any organization or person who accepts your ideas unquestioningly as a reputable scientific authority.
Unquestioningly ?
This is because you don't seem to have formulated your claims yet and you have not done any tests that would indicate that there is anything involved that scientists don't already know. Your work is not yet ready to be taken seriously by science.
I don’t nescessarily disagree but I know this is in the works now. My aim is to create an audience far more interesting than the scienctific community. And that is people like you and I. I can assure you that scientists don’t already know what I know and I can also assure you that science will become interested in me as they can study me in relation to subjects that have already been very well examined but miss the final answer, where or what is its source ?
Also, I think you take the wrong route. You try to find recognition by the highest of scientific authorities, but you have very little to convince them of anything. It would be better to try to do a few experiments, maybe asking a few people of a local skeptic's group to help you... Start smaller: very little science is done by people with a few revolutionary ideas that immediately convinces the scientific community.
That is your opinion, based on what you know now. And I respect that. I am your patient after all. But you do not forsee what your patient foresees.
Having said that, I’d rather be seen as student. I Russia I cannot be anyones patient because there is no pathology.
Testimonial evidence can sometimes be used in science, but only when it might lead to evidence that can be checked. For instance, when some people say they have seen a strange beast, scientists can look for it, trying to find footprints or droppings or the beast itself. But when someone tells that something happened to them 20 years ago, there is nothing left to check whether it really happened exactly like that, and therefore it is not scientific evidence.
Exactly, and so that leaves an opportunity open.
The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural.
No, of course not. But because there is no way to check how it happened exactly, there is also no evidence that it was supernatural. There is no proof one way or the other, but since supernatural occurances are very rare or even non-existed, and occurances that people mistake for being supernatural are quite common, most skeptics will assume that it is the latter.
That I cannot help. There ís a way to check how it happened exactly. Just ask me any question and I will answer it.
The proof of my brothers burrial being represented in a painting is my evidence. That evidence is supported by a lot of circumstantial evidence.
Metaphorically speaking, sometimes a rapist does not get sentenced because of lack of evidence. The rapist knows he is guilty. The fact that he committed the crime constitutes evidence, it can manifest by means of his own testimony. When the rapist would plead guilty by providing the evidence, he would be admitted to the court. On the basis of that I beg to differ with you that my case wouldn’t be acceptable to science. No matter how others misstake non existing occurences for being supernatural. Others are not my problem. I forsaw my brothers death. Or if I come your way, a death that happened to be my brother. Pure coincidence, were it not that I described in detail the way in which he would be burried. And then the story starts.
What happened to me does not happen to most people; in my 8 years of research I have not found one comparable case.
I think that highly depends on what you think is 'comparable'. And the fact that it you didn't find anyone with a comparable case is not indicative that it isn't just a random event.
Someone who experiences supernatural sensing (multi dimensional awareness) on the basis of which he or she can testify to at least one or two supernatural experiences and as a result of that experiences ideomotor effects manifesting in writing, drawing, physical experiences, euritmics, sports, psychootherapy and what have we for other areas.
Random events are true events, just occuring by chance. Not finding a comparable (the same thing) person indicates that my case is truely unique.
What I meant was, did mr. Randi ever participate (as subject) in a test involving induced hypnosis or trance and ideomotor effect to learn how results would influence his opinion on the supernatural abilities of man ?
I don't know. Unfortunately JREF does not give much information about the past challenges, and I personally see that as a weakness of the challenge. However we should also realize that for many people who participated, the fact that they lost is such an embarrasment that they probably don't want any information released. It would aid in the fairness of the tests though, and in the showing people that the tests are fair...
I have no trouble with releasing the information. I want the information out, no matter what Randi has to say about it. My case draws right upon the emotional bodies and mental belief systems of people. My story will therefore find support from people because my work and story mirrors a true side of life. Their life, in a mystical sense. And that is good because there is no conflict in that. My art is communication from the other side and I drew it. This becomes less mystical when I can make people aware of that they live, right now, in that realm we call the other side. Perhaps, mr. Randi would have as much difficulty to disprove me as I have proving my claim to him.
Well, yes. I noticed that it was mirrored. However, the colour seems that of human skin and the fact that mirror images can sometimes create strange shapes I could not determine whether or not it was a part of human anatomy.
That is a great comment and very perceiptive of you. The original is a black indian ink on white carbon paper. The painting was photographed in 1997 with one of the first, cheap, bad quality, apple macintosh digital camera’s. This is why it came out, pure chance and coincidence. But the effect of skin was there. Can’t help it. Created by circumstances. The photograph was scanned on an apple 1 scanner and then reproduced in photoshop, mirrored and against a black background.
Perhaps it would be a better idea to post a scan of the original picture without the colouring or the lighting effect?
No, this little picture is my trademark. If you want to see the scan or other reproductions I will certainly oblidge. Is this the image you want to discuss ? (I asked in one of my replies)
The picture is far too small to see what it actually is... Can't you give a link to a larger version?
The website does not accept large images. I will give you a link as soon as I have put it up.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Aster

I have associated this picture with Ima’an. Ima’an is my cosmic guide, a creature that has been with me since early childhood. Ima’an is the foreteller of IAM-, IS-, and ISIS presence experiencing. I believe I drew Ima’an picture first in 1979. In 1994, I created this ideomotor graphic representation of Ima’an. Obviously, the image is part of an original ideomotor drawing complimented with it’s mirror half.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

Is Ima'an any kin to a "Mara" or "Max". Click on the link to read my ideometer story.



http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17946

[Earthborn]

A scientist studying himself provides ‘equally true for everybody’, even when working totally by himself. The mix is this: The scientist within the person represents and protects the objective research and the student within the person represents the subjective research providing an interpretation of results that are different for everybody, thus providing a combination of efforts.Such a split in two persons is not realistic, and no scientist is required to that, nor is any scientist taken very seriously when s/he says s/he can do it.

Objectivity in the scientific sense is only arrived when both people who believe in an idea and those who don't believe it get the same results in experiments and both must admit what is true. Note that this means that both sides of the debate can be completely subjective, but objectivity arises when they confirm eachothers results.We can discuss and argue all our life, we can test all our life, but that’s not where solutions are quickly found, nor where new idea’s are formed instantly.No, it is not where solutions are quickly found: it is where the right solutions are found, often after a long time and much hard work. The truth is not easy to find, it takes a lot of effort.Scientists research problems in their minds and bodies, do steep introspective thinking (perhaps even trance meditation) and the best research is often performed in solitude, when asleep!This is true, to some degree. Scientists do sometimes get ideas and inspiration from the things you mention. However, in science it is irrelevant where you got your ideas, as long as you can prove them. And that takes effort.

Often scientist today get their ideas from the effort of research they do. They get the understanding of how something works from the thing they study. A beautiful example of that is the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. They simply tried their best to get the structure right, and when they finally did it's structure revealed to them how it worked. Their discovery didn't come from a dream or trance or deep introspective thinking, but simply from hard work and dedication.But that is not a problem. Results will be put to the test. When the test is not available we are smart enought to think of one. When the experiment cannot be tested, as in my claim, we design a scientific model of acceptance that accomodates claimes of the supernatural to be accepted by science.No, if soemthing cannot be tested scientifically, science will simply declare it unanswerable, or even irrelevant. However, I don't think your claims cannot be tested. You seem to claim that sometimes things from the future end up in your drawings: this is testable. It is not necessarily easy to test, though.I won’t deny that it is you who is raising your arm. But what
causes you to raise it ?Me. I raised it. Someone tells me to raise it and I choose to obey. Whether I am hypnothized or not makes no difference: a few signals from my brain make some muscles to contract.I was also once programmed to believe that the brain is responsible for this. But has that been tested and supported by evidence ? And if so, are tests not designed to prove just that ? Where the assumption is in place that there is more to movement that just the brain ?Actually here you have a point. However the tests that were used for this sort of work (in neurology) were not desigend to prove one thing. If they were, they wouldn't be good tests.

It was often assumed that the brain simply controlled the body. Neurologists now know, after extensive testing, that this is not true: often the body controls the brain. Body and brain are in constant communication, sometimes one takes preference over the other. Although many people have searched for it, there is no evidence that the mind, spirit whatever, is in someway metaphysical/paranormal/beyond scientific understanding.We have insufficient financial assets to substantiate laboratory testing. We plan to raise funds through book and artsales, even a movie for the russian market is in the works.I'm afraid that you will lose any scientific credibility if you take that route. Scientists follow rules, and one of the rules is that you don't present your ideas to the general public until you have worked it all out in the lab and allowed other scientists to critize your work. It is considered cheating and dishonest, because the support you get for your work would be by popular vote, not scientific excellence. The general public cannot decide what is good science and what is not, because the average person doesn't have the skill and knowledge of science to make such a decision.

And why would you need so much money? The first tests (similar to the tests I presented earlier) would be very simple and cheap. After doing such simple tests you can decide whether more expensive tests are worth it. not before. Perhaps doing a few tests can give you a result that might win you the JREF challenge when you repeat it under controlled conditions. Then you have all the money you need.Unquestioningly ?I meant, that if they would accept your work with less criticism than I have given you, I don't consider them worth consideration.My aim is to create an audience far more interesting than the scienctific community.You seem to think science is too boring to be considered. I think you are wrong, I think you should try to get respect from the scientific community (by doing science, experiments, not just writing to universities!). If you get it you will be remembered as a great scientist discovering a new filed of study. If you try to get heard umong the general public, the greatest you will ever reach is becoming yet another paranormal fad that people will forget about within 5 years.I have no trouble with releasing the information.Good!Perhaps, mr. Randi would have as much difficulty to disprove me as I have proving my claim to him.Actually, no. To join the challenge you must agree with him beforehand what constitute failure and what success. All you have to do is do as good as you agreed on in advance. A claimant will only fail if s/he cannot do what s/he claimed to be able to do.

So your ideas and claims would be disproven by the things that you yourself have said in advance that they would disprove your claims.That is your opinion, based on what you know now. And I respect that. I am your patient after all. But you do not forsee what your patient foresees.AmateurScientist already called me Dr. Earthborn. Now I have another patient, cool. :)

Now do what the doctor tells you. You may feel perfectly fine, but if you don't finish the cure... :)Having said that, I’d rather be seen as student.Okay, a student then. You may not understand why you need to learn this lesson right now, but it will become very important later on. :)That evidence is supported by a lot of circumstantial evidence.So, what is it?The fact that he committed the crime constitutes evidenceSuppose you are accused of shoplifting, but you didn't do it. Would you accept that the prosecutor just says: "The fact that he committed the crime constitutes evidence" ? Of course not. More proof is always needed, because without it no one can be sure.

Actually science is very similar to justice. There is a jury (the scientific community), there is the presumption of 'falseness' of a new theory. There are 'lawyers' defending that presumption, and 'prosecutors' challenging it. All this is needed to prevent theories that are true to be sentenced to oblivion and to make sure theories that are false do not to enter the scientific mainstream where they can only do harm.

[Aster]

Is Ima'an any kin to a "Mara" or "Max". Click on the link to read my ideometer story.

Dear Ruby.

I have read your story with interest and will say that Ima'an is no kin to your Mara or Max. Our experiences are similar, obviously.

I have extensively experimented with spirit entities and I thoroughly know the dark side. A registered reïncarnation therapist can help you if you still experience a latently present Max.

Experimenting (with ideomotor action) in the form of Ouija boards, automatic writing, glass turning, etc, but even psychotherapeutic ideomotor questioning, is not without danger, as you have now learned.

Try to put the ideomotor effect to creative use.

The ideomotor process may drain on your energies as long as you cloud the information with your own conscious wishes and expectations during the process. If you would experiment again, set yourself up to give yourself over to the force and allow the process to flow freely. Don’t be afraid, remember you are in control, you can always stop it. Don’t think about what is being written, don’t analyse it during the process nor expect anything; don’t interfere the autonomous process with things of your own thinking.

Ask for protection, ask Jezus or who is close to you. Christ consciousness helps you and protects you. Stop whenever you feel it is enough and cast away entities that don’t feel good. Be extremely firm about what you allow and what you don’t allow.

Rgds.,
Aster.



http://www.cybercomm.nl/cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Aster
[B]

Dear Ruby.

I have read your story with interest and will say that Ima'an is no kin to your Mara or Max. Our experiences are similar, obviously.

I have extensively experimented with spirit entities and I thoroughly know the dark side. A registered reïncarnation therapist can help you if you still experience a latently present Max.

It has never returned...thankfully! I have likened it to a door being slammed shut.

Experimenting (with ideomotor action) in the form of Ouija boards, automatic writing, glass turning, etc, but even psychotherapeutic ideomotor questioning, is not without danger, as you have now learned. Try to put the ideomotor effect to creative use. The ideomotor process may drain on your energies as long as you cloud the information with your own conscious wishes and expectations during the process. If you would experiment again, set yourself up to give yourself over to the force and allow the process to flow freely. Don’t be afraid, remember you are in control, you can always stop it. Don’t think about what is being written, don’t analyse it during the process nor expect anything; don’t interfere the autonomous process with things of your own thinking.

I only experienced feeling drained the first few times I played with the ouija. Once I was doing it on my own, I no longer expereinced a drained feeling or headaches. I was bitten so bad by my ouija experience that I am not willing to venture out into that again.

Ask for protection, ask Jezus or who is close to you. Christ consciousness helps you and protects you. Stop whenever you feel it is enough and cast away entities that don’t feel good. Be extremely firm about what you allow and what you don’t allow.

Since the bible speaks loud and clear against using methods of fortune telling, I would not be given any protection. Besides, I firmly believe that the ideometer factor is all in the mind...literally. So called "Spirit guides" are really just a part of ourselves in our own subconscious. At least, this was my experience.

[Aster]

Such a split in two persons is not realistic, and no scientist is required to that, nor is any scientist taken very seriously when s/he says s/he can do it.
Just not common practice but realistic enough for me. Not nescessarily a great example but think about the medical scientist who put SARS on the map and died as a result from the disease.
Objectivity in the scientific sense is only arrived when both people who believe in an idea and those who don't believe it get the same results in experiments and both must admit what is true. Note that this means that both sides of the debate can be completely subjective, but objectivity arises when they confirm each others results.
Allright. My nutshell is beginning to crack.
No, it is not where solutions are quickly found: it is where the right solutions are found, often after a long time and much hard work. The truth is not easy to find, it takes a lot of effort.
I obviously agree, yet the truth is sometimes in plain sight and easier to find than we are led to believe. And so we do understand each other. The ‘truth’ is and has been there all along, but as long there is no proof, it doesn’t mean a thing to the science community.
New truths may originate from hard work and research, even I know that. And it is a good thing, I am not debating the system. What I mean to get accross is that any new truth was already a reality before it was acknowledged and proven by science. And so is my own personal truth.
Often scientist today get their ideas from the effort of research they do. They get the understanding of how something works from the thing they study. A beautiful example of that is the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. They simply tried their best to get the structure right, and when they finally did it's structure revealed to them how it worked. Their discovery didn't come from a dream or trance or deep introspective thinking, but simply from hard work and dedication.
That is great indeed. But we do not know what influence subconscious thought processes, expressed symbolically in dreams, moments of natural trance or deep introspective thinking had on Watson and Crick. I do understand the point you are making and I see the great potential in that; but did anyone ever interview them about their dreams, etcetera ? A scientist is but a person, a human being, trying to solve problems. But does that process apparently use only a very small percentage of his brain ? There is always subconscious thinking, there is always a dream.
No, if something cannot be tested scientifically, science will simply declare it unanswerable, or even irrelevant.
That says something about science and the way in which it is designed to be in conflict with reality. I knew I wasn’t getting away with it.
However, I don't think your claims cannot be tested. You seem to claim that sometimes things from the future end up in your drawings: this is testable. It is not necessarily easy to test, though.
What about things from a the past or a past life, or from a subpersonality, spirits, entities, things of an extraterrestrial or cosmic nature, things that tell something about the afterlife, metaphisical and mystical connections, things pointing to primeaval trauma, religious tradition ? What about claims towards the existence of a relation between cosmos and consciousness and so on ? Where am I going with all that ?

And then I want you to comment on this: Robin Alliot writes about biological and robotic motor control research. The major speculation was that motor control might be organised in temrs of a limited set of elementary motor subprograms comparable to phonemes in speech. He describes recent research that seems to substantiate the idea of a motor control alphabet of this kind. I read this only one month ago. Yet one of the elements in my research is about such an alphabet. Could it be that what I am studying and what he writes are the same thing ?
Me. I raised it. Someone tells me to raise it and I choose to obey. Whether I am hypnothized or not makes no difference: a few signals from my brain make some muscles to contract.
What few signals ? Where do these signals come from, if not from the hypnotisor ? What do you mean by you, when you speak of yourself ? Why are you uncomfortable with the fact that an external suggestion can cause an ideomotor effect ? Again it is Robin Alliot who writes the most effective verbal formula’s take the form of vivid word pictures of concrete images that are easily imagined. In your case, the image is that of your arm raised. A continuous stimulation by words associated with a particular act will bring about the act. Wether words are those of the subject himself or of some other person.

You may be the one who is choosing to lift your arm, but I doubt that it is you who chooses, and it’s not by volition anyway. And that is where my point begins. Your arm will rise even against your will. Why ? Because there is apparently not one of you that can have you move your arm, but there is another you, one that you will not perceive as you, but that you perceive as alien, as someone else. This is what creates a mental conflict in a person’s psyche. The Ideomotor effect manifests that.
It was often assumed that the brain simply controlled the body. Neurologists now know, after extensive testing, that this is not true: often the body controls the brain. Body and brain are in constant communication, sometimes one takes preference over the other. Although many people have searched for it, there is no evidence that the mind, spirit whatever, is in someway metaphysical/paranormal/beyond scientific understanding.
Of course. And here we have something to go by. Something may be scientifically understandable, yet remain not proven. What happens with us ideomotorically when the brain moves the body ? What happens ideomotorically when the body moves the brain ? Is it a closed cirquit that you describe ? When the subconscious signals by means of an ideomotor movement, and you feel it is something more than your own brain that is doing this, is it the body controlling the brain ? Are we – consciously - the brain, and are we subconsciously experiencing the body as the external force behind unconscious ideomotor action ?
I'm afraid that you will lose any scientific credibility if you take that route.
I can see your point but we want our information out this way. See, my work is where I believe the old science of today will transform into a new metaphore. Dream on Aster, I hear you think. Science, in respect of ESP, is skeptic of the reality that my work represents. A movie like the sixth sense and many others, contain ‘supernatural’ codes of information that intend to communicate and pull up humanity into a knowledge that rather seems to be controlled, kept away from us and protected from undesired corruption, as opposed to not being invented or prooved yet.
Religious traditions are one of the institutions I suspect of this. And bloodline royalty too, as well as people high up on the unknown ladder in the new world order hierarchy. Ordinary people like me, but scientits too, are its victims. Obviously I have no proof to substantiate these ideas, but there are people who do.
Scientists follow rules, and one of the rules is that you don't present your ideas to the general public until you have worked it all out in the lab and allowed other scientists to critize your work.
You have to understand that our book is about ideomotor effect, which is a well studied phenomenon. The book is not about my personal supernatural claims, rather illustrated by my ideomotor art and communication, which is a chapter in the book. It serves as a representation of my mentality with regards to ideomotor experiencing.
Sivitsky is not in favor of me getting acquainted with the Randi Institute. He is like you and follows the same scientific rules. Let there be no mistake about this, much less by the way I represent him and try to do him good and justice.
It is considered cheating and dishonest, because the support you get for your work would be by popular vote, not scientific excellence.
I understand. But from a commercial perspective, our way is the best option we see to ensure the funding of a new and powerful scientific community researching trance experiences and ideomotor effects. This idea is embedded in IIIR for example. Vladimir and I have nothing against people who mean to slow down a process that is generally out in the open. We just want to be on top of it.
The general public cannot decide what is good science and what is not, because the average person doesn't have the skill and knowledge of science to make such a decision.
Obviously. Yet, future science and the general public will be as one, is how I see it develop, whereas today science people and the general public are two different entities for the reasons you describe, like an ant is different from a setting of consumer market strategies.
And why would you need so much money?
Much ? What do you think I have in mind ?
We just need what it costs, that’s all.
The first tests (similar to the tests I presented earlier) would be very simple and cheap. After doing such simple tests you can decide whether more expensive tests are worth it. not before. Perhaps doing a few tests can give you a result that might win you the JREF challenge when you repeat it under controlled conditions. Then you have all the money you need.
You must be kidding, right ?! But I will consider it. We are a long long way from home still. When the time comes I will make a point about the rediculous amount of that one million dollars. I see Randi making a name for himself on the back of someone who shows something supernatural; he will buy himself out and into the media millions paid to him by an industry that may acquire a license on his name and work.
You seem to think science is too boring to be considered.
No no no. It’s just that in my case, scientific research is discovering something that already exists. Works in retrospect of something that already happened. At worst, it is discovering proof for something that already exists. Science is a wonderful medium. Being a scientist is another matter. I am an ideomotor artist, a scribe medium, a shaman. Vladimir Sivitsky is the scientist who stands behind me and my work, he has my vote.
I think you are wrong, I think you should try to get respect from the scientific community (by doing science, experiments, not just writing to universities!).
Okay, good suggestion. But don’t forget, our project is just 18 months old. Its an infant that is just learning to speak.
If you get it you will be remembered as a great scientist discovering a new filed of study.
But I already told you that the scientist in me is missing or rather, incompetent. Scientifically speaking I am but a student. But you can understand how my work is left for science, pseudoscience and the general public to comment upon. The ideomotor art and communication skills are for the whole world to see, to be experienced and last but not least protected.
If you try to get heard umong the general public, the greatest you will ever reach is becoming yet another paranormal fad that people will forget about within 5 years.
Science will follow me, Earthborn, no matter what I plan to do. Actually you are being a bit blunt and ignorent about the monumental work and experience I represent. Artists are remembered for centuries, there where they inspire ordinairy people and scientists alike.
You should really come and visit me here and have a look for yourself.
You could also experience the ideomotor effect before you comment. Skeptic or scientist are often talking about a biophysical experience that they have tested on people who show these symptoms, but not on themselves. Why ? Fear! If I should do the expiriments, why not you, and especially mr. Randi. What I can do, you can learn to do too, yes ?
AmateurScientist already called me Dr. Earthborn. Now I have another patient, cool.
Don’t worry. I’m still here and going nowhere. Ahm... how many patients do you have, in fact, dr. Earthborn ?J
Okay, a student then. You may not understand why you need to learn this lesson right now, but it will become very important later on.
I believe I know why I need to learn this lesson and there’s nothing I want to do about it, my intent is to take fruit of the results.
That evidence is supported by a lot of circumstantial evidence. So, what is it?
I’ll make a list of that too, teacher.
Suppose you are accused of shoplifting, but you didn't do it. Would you accept that the prosecutor just says: "The fact that he committed the crime constitutes evidence" ? Of course not. More proof is always needed, because without it no one can be sure.
In your perspective, Yes. In my perspective, no.
Am I a teachers nightmare or what ?
Actually science is very similar to justice. There is a jury (the scientific community), there is the presumption of 'falseness' of a new theory. There are 'lawyers' defending that presumption, and 'prosecutors' challenging it. All this is needed to prevent theories that are true to be sentenced to oblivion and to make sure theories that are false do not to enter the scientific mainstream where they can only do harm.
My thoughts exactly.

I’ve sometimes wondered what kind of art skeptics have hanging from their walls. Mr. Randi’s home is not big enough to fill it with the entirity of my work. See that picture before your eyes ? My work would even be out on his garden terrace, by the swiming pool, hanging from the walls of his tennis court. Even from his garage doors if you will. Ideomotor artistic representations in support of the supernatural staring him in the face...

One last thought : I am beginning to wonder if mr. Randi has knowledge of the supernatural that is a constant; a proven truth about the matter that remains ceiled untill unveiled ? What that knowledge actually is, remains unknown to all, even you, unless you’re in on his game. This constant may be what truely motivates and drives JREF and mr. Randi. Without knowing exactly what constitutes the existence of supernatural and paranormal abilities, there would be no sense in JREF, no motivation to institutionalize James Randi. After all, we are trying to become what we already are.


Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

It has never returned...thankfully! I have likened it to a door being slammed shut.

And that's a good thing. But in your case, the ideomotor force might return and with it, Max will return. Behind the door slammed shut must be a place where Max still resides until that same door is unlocked. I don't mean to frighten or upset you but that is just my thought. I too have cast out spirits and even suppressed the ideomotor effects for 6 or 7 years. Then something happened that made it come back in a force ten times stonger. No matter wether Mara or Max are parts of your subconscious self that you have now succesfully suppressed, that part of you is psychology/parapsychology that tends to brake out, become free, become conscious in order to be processed.

I only experienced feeling drained the first few times I played with the ouija. Once I was doing it on my own, I no longer expereinced a drained feeling or headaches. I was bitten so bad by my ouija experience that I am not willing to venture out into that again.

Good. The ouija board is slow and inaccurate, but perhaps when you are mentally and professionally equipped to use it fast, like Jane Roberts did. That's why I opted to utilise your ideomotor talents to creative use.

Since the bible speaks loud and clear against using methods of fortune telling, I would not be given any protection..

That is an association you make and not nescessarily incorrect. It is not a christian thing to tempt fate. But it is not wrong to experiment with psychic talents that you may have. In any case, you would get protection. Protection is not depending upon something that the bible speaks of as sin.

[/QUOTE]Besides, I firmly believe that the ideometer factor is all in the mind...literally. So called "Spirit guides" are really just a part of ourselves in our own subconscious. At least, this was my experience.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. Ideomotor is everywhere in the body.
Spirit guides may very well be parts of ourselves, that is another thing than saying they don't exist or are delusions. We don't know much about the greater makeup of our being, do we ?

Best Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

In the other thread I have put up pictures of the original painting of 1979 and some pictures of my brothers funeral.

In this thread I am putting up a representation of Ima'Án, the original ideomotor drawing (size 120 cm x 80 cm) of 1994, and a detail made in photoshop after digitally photographig it with a bad camera. (for reproduction, media or research I have excellent professional scans (1:1) of the same available.)

Detail of Imaan, 1994
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan1.jpeg

The original ideomotor drawing of Imaan, 1994
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan5.jpeg

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan2.jpeg

This is what happens after a simple photoshop manipulation using a bad digital camera and apple 1 scan, putting up a background and some lighting effects. Imaan comes to life.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan3.jpeg

The original automatic drawing of 120cm by 80cm was drawn in less than two hours. Most drawings (50cm x 70cm standard format) take between 30 to 45 minutes.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Why is it I see such a similarity to another poster and Million Dollar Challenge applicant? There were numerous instances of whining about how the rules are too restrictive, and that we were constricting our thinking by being bound by such concepts as 'rules'...

Mr. Randi rarely if ever ventures onto this forum. If you want to apply for the Challenge and be tested, then go here (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html), read up on the Challenge, download the appropriate documents, and apply. But stop this mental flatulence about your being blessed with these abilities that have nothing more than your word to back them up.

Ball's in your court. Sh*t or get off the pot. Come high or stay at home. Ante up or fold. Get busy or get gone. If you haven't figured it out by now, I have little if any patience anymore for those who blather on endlessly without saying anything.

Actions speak louder than words. Let's see ya do something.

[Aster]

Why is it I see such a similarity to another poster and Million Dollar Challenge applicant? There were numerous instances of whining about how the rules are too restrictive, and that we were constricting our thinking by being bound by such concepts as 'rules'...

Let's put things in the right perspective here. I am just a poster, no applicant. I am not making any comment about the rules not be in order. They are just fine and they serve a purpose.

Mr. Randi rarely if ever ventures onto this forum. If you want to apply for the Challenge and be tested, then go here, read up on the Challenge, download the appropriate documents, and apply. But stop this mental flatulence about your being blessed with these abilities that have nothing more than your word to back them up.

I am convinced about what I experience. Skeptics like Earthborn peal off a certain skin that seems old and used up, even symbolises the incorrect. I have experienced that as refreshing and positive.

Ball's in your court. Sh*t or get off the pot. Come high or stay at home. Ante up or fold. Get busy or get gone. If you haven't figured it out by now, I have little if any patience anymore for those who blather on endlessly without saying anything.

Well... you don't háve to respond to this thread, do you ?
Do like others and dismiss it in silence.

Actions speak louder than words. Let's see ya do something.

In time, perhaps, when the right test is available. I am unsure, though not unwilling, about doing Randi's experiments because these experiments have been done before and they proved only what is already known, nothing new.

Rgds.,
Aster.
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Earthborn]

Sorry, Charlie, I'm with Aster on this one. Your post is not helpful at all. If you are already lost your patience for 'those who blather on endlessly without saying anything', then nothing stops you from ignoring these threads.

It's not like Aster hijacks almost every thread or posts millions of threads without answering to any questions, like some claimants have done in the past. You should have no trouble ignoring him at all...

[Earthborn]

Just not common practice but realistic enough for me. Not nescessarily a great example but think about the medical scientist who put SARS on the map and died as a result from the disease.It is absolutely true that some scientists start with experimenting on themselves, even put themselves at risk. However, it should lead to evidence other scientists can check. Just a list of personal experiences is almost never acceptable.But we do not know what influence subconscious thought processes, expressed symbolically in dreams, moments of natural trance or deep introspective thinking had on Watson and Crick.What I meant to say is that they were basically doing a giant and complicated jigsaw puzzle. Only when they finished it could anyone see how it worked. Their subconscious played a big role in making the puzzle, no doubt. But it only helped them solve small pieces of the puzzle.What about things from a the past or a past life, or from a subpersonality, spirits, entities, things of an extraterrestrial or cosmic nature, things that tell something about the afterlife, metaphisical and mystical connections, things pointing to primeaval trauma, religious tradition ? What about claims towards the existence of a relation between cosmos and consciousness and so on ? Where am I going with all that ?Some of the things you mention are not testable, others maybe testable but difficult to test. As long as things are untestable, you can believe in them if you like, but others could believe the exact opposite and there is no way to check who is right.

Things that are testable but difficult to test can be a good starting point for trying to find evidence for them. This doesn't need to be direct evidence for these phenomona. If these are difficult to test, it maybe a better idea to test phenoma that have some connection to them and are easier to test. For instance, you said you think you can use a pendulum or dowsing rod: this is easily and cheaply testable. It would not directly prove your ideas about ideomotor drawing, but if you are right and you can do it, it gives your ideas more credibility. And if you are wrong and you can't do it, you at least learned how to do proper research.And then I want you to comment on this: Robin Alliot writes about biological and robotic motor control research. The major speculation was that motor control might be organised in temrs of a limited set of elementary motor subprograms comparable to phonemes in speech. He describes recent research that seems to substantiate the idea of a motor control alphabet of this kind.Sounds interesting. Where did you read about it?Yet one of the elements in my research is about such an alphabet. Could it be that what I am studying and what he writes are the same thing ?Perhaps. Or there are just a few superficial similarities. His ideas seem much more traditionally materialistic, while yours are more metaphysical... So I think there are just superficial similarities. But I may be wrong.What few signals ? Where do these signals come from, if not from the hypnotisor ?I would say from my brain. Simple electrical signals caused by the biochemistry of my brain. My brain simply gets a few electrical signals from my ears, my brain reacts to it and I react to it. Please note that is the same thing as when someone simply asks me to do something and I choose to comply. I am not convinced that hypnotism is anything special in this regard as people can't be forced under hypnotism to do things they really don't want to.
Most skeptics are not convinced hypnotism is a way of making someone do things without their conscious volition.What do you mean by you, when you speak of yourself ?My neurological self: my senses, muscles, nerves and brain.Why are you uncomfortable with the fact that an external suggestion can cause an ideomotor effect ?I'm not uncomfortable with it. I just never saw any evidence that an external force as you describe it actually exists. A hypnotist can do a suggestion, but that's not like the external force you describe: a force that is metaphysical and might even be able to see the future.In your case, the image is that of your arm raised. A continuous stimulation by words associated with a particular act will bring about the act. Wether words are those of the subject himself or of some other person.Yes, but this is pure neurology. It doesn't involve anything mystical as the thing you claim.You may be the one who is choosing to lift your arm, but I doubt that it is you who chooses, and it's not by volition anyway. And that is where my point begins. Your arm will rise even against your will.There's where we disagree.What happens ideomotorically when the body moves the brain ? Is it a closed cirquit that you describe ?I've never seen compelling evidence that it isn't, and am continually amazed at how great the closed cirquits function that are proven to exist.I can see your point but we want our information out this way.Then prepare to be ridiculed and your ideas ignored at least as long as your lifetime. This is a serious warning! But if you follow a few simple rules, that are really not that unreasonable, you may not prove what you want to prove... but you will gain respect and learn a lot.A movie like the sixth sense and many others, contain 'supernatural' codes of information that intend to communicate Remember: it is a movie. It is not real. Someone just made it all up. There may be 'codes of information' or just storylines you think are codes....and pull up humanity into a knowledge that rather seems to be controlled, kept away from us and protected from undesired corruption, as opposed to not being invented or prooved yet.If there is anything scientific about this information, then there is no one who keeps it away from you.Religious traditions are one of the institutions I suspect of this. And bloodline royalty too, as well as people high up on the unknown ladder in the new world order hierarchy.Sorry, but I don't believe in such a thing. Quite the contrary: often scientific discoveries shock religious institutions and governments and they just have to cope with the implications. There is nothing in their power to stop them.Ordinary people like me, but scientits too, are its victims.How are scientists the victims? Do you believe they aren't allowed to do the research they want? That they are silenced if they discover some part of the truth? Are scientific journals censored? Sorry, but I can't imagine how that would work. Science is one of the most powerful forces of our society and a discovery made by one person can be made by many other people too. There is no way control it.Obviously I have no proof to substantiate these ideas, but there are people who do.Who?You have to understand that our book is about ideomotor effect, which is a well studied phenomenon.Okay.Sivitsky is not in favor of me getting acquainted with the Randi Institute.This proves that you are already a better scientist than he is. You are willing to face criticism, and that's a very important part of science. Being critized is never pleasant, but it is necessary.But from a commercial perspective, our way is the best option we see to ensure the funding of a new and powerful scientific community researching trance experiences and ideomotor effects.Then perhaps you shouldn't see it from a commercial perspective. Perhaps you should be concentrating in figuring the truth out.

You can't make a new scientific community. You will have to gain respect from the existing one. You have to face its criticism.Vladimir and I have nothing against people who mean to slow down a processObviously, because you are slowing it down yourself. Really, the fastest way to get things out in the open (assuming they are true!) is by following a few simple scientific rules.Yet, future science and the general public will be as oneI doubt it. Science gets more complex by the minute and the general public will be able to keep up with it less and less. Scientific fields will be so specialized that for any subject there will only be a few specialists who actually understand it.

Science isn't democratic and it shouldn't be: it is designed to find the truth, not what most people want the truth to be. I know it is hard to understand how something so inherently undemocratic can be fair, but it is.Much ? What do you think I have in mind ?Obviously more than what you need for a few teacups and a pendulum. You first must do the simple experiments before you can decide whether there is something worth a more expensive investigation.I see Randi making a name for himself on the back of someone who shows something supernatural; he will buy himself out and into the media millions paid to him by an industry that may acquire a license on his name and work.But the person winning the challenge will make a name for him/herself too. Probably a bigger name than Randi.It's just that in my case, scientific research is discovering something that already exists.Of course. It doesn't discover things that don't exist. That's exactly what it is meant to do: figuring out what exists and what not.Vladimir Sivitsky is the scientist who stands behind me and my work, he has my vote.But he's not a good scientist. You're a better one.But don't forget, our project is just 18 months old. Its an infant that is just learning to speak.That's why I am teaching you to speak, so to speak. :)and last but not least protected.Against what?Science will follow me, Earthborn, no matter what I plan to do.If your claims are true: yes. But it will probably take more than your lifetime. If you take the scientific route, it will be faster. But still only if your claims are actually true.Artists are remembered for centuriesSome of them are. Most are forgotten.You could also experience the ideomotor effect before you comment.I have experienced it, meaning I did experiment with a pendulum. I know firsthand how seductive it is to believe there is anything to it. That doesn't mean there is.Ahm... how many patients do you have, in fact, dr. Earthborn ?Well, as I'm not an actual doctor, until now only you and AmateurScientist (another poster on this forum). :)I'll make a list of that too, teacher.Great. Remember that you don't have to make a complete list before you post anything. Just make rough outline of the things you claim and what you think is evidence for it, so we can discuss it.In your perspective, Yes. In my perspective, no.
Am I a teachers nightmare or what ?Well, if you were studying law: yes. :)

In law, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if he did it! It is more important that it can be proven true than that it is true. Something may very well be true if there isn't any evidence for it, but it still means that you cannot be certain that it is true. You need evidence to get a higher level of certainty.My work would even be out on his garden terrace, by the swiming pool, hanging from the walls of his tennis court. Even from his garage doors if you will. I doubt he has all that. He isn't so rich himself.Ideomotor artistic representations in support of the supernatural staring him in the face...I don't think it would convince him that it is in any way supernatural. For that you need to do more than just draw pictures.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Sorry, Charlie, I'm with Aster on this one. Your post is not helpful at all. If you are already lost your patience for 'those who blather on endlessly without saying anything', then nothing stops you from ignoring these threads.

It's not like Aster hijacks almost every thread or posts millions of threads without answering to any questions, like some claimants have done in the past. You should have no trouble ignoring him at all...

Perhaps you're right. I've had PM's with a few other posters on this general situation. For reasons I am closing in on, the attitude displayed pushes a couple of my high-voltage buttons, rendering me less objective than I should be in situations like this.

Aster, perhaps I could have chosen my words better. If so, on that basis you have my apologies.

[Aster]

It is absolutely true that some scientists start with experimenting on themselves, even put themselves at risk. However, it should lead to evidence other scientists can check. Just a list of personal experiences is almost never acceptable.
Okay, I believe I have learned that lesson. I remain intrigued and inspired by the possibility that personal experience of something that seems beyond ones natural ability may bring forward an acceptable explanation one way or the other. I believe without a doubt that the ideomotor phenomenon involves exaclty this: creation beyond ones volitive intent. In my case it is this: if I wanted to draw what has now been ideomotorically drawn in abundance, I could not have done it, not even one single drawing.
What I meant to say is that they were basically doing a giant and complicated jigsaw puzzle. Only when they finished it could anyone see how it worked. Their subconscious played a big role in making the puzzle, no doubt. But it only helped them solve small pieces of the puzzle.
I see. So you have no problem accepting the idea that their subconscious played a (big) role. You also seem to know where it helped them. I would be very interested to learn where and how it helped them solve small pieces of the puzzle.
Some of the things you mention are not testable, others maybe testable but difficult to test. As long as things are untestable, you can believe in them if you like, but others could believe the exact opposite and there is no way to check who is right.
Your answer illustrates why it takes a while to compose a claim, if this is at all a route we should continue following. With the help of Vladimir Sivitsky it may become easier, not withstanding his and your view that testing may not be impossible, but either non existent or very difficult. Quoting from his letter: “In creation of an image, which is then represented on IM-figure, the last
experience and forecasting of the future takes part.”
Things that are testable but difficult to test can be a good starting point for trying to find evidence for them. This doesn't need to be direct evidence for these phenomona. If these are difficult to test, it maybe a better idea to test phenoma that have some connection to them and are easier to test. For instance, you said you think you can use a pendulum or dowsing rod: this is easily and cheaply testable. It would not directly prove your ideas about ideomotor drawing, but if you are right and you can do it, it gives your ideas more credibility. And if you are wrong and you can't do it, you at least learned how to do proper research.
Working with the pendulum and dowsing rods is actually not a good method or medium for me. I have done this several times and learned that these methods are slow and unreliable. The moving of a finger works instantly where the pendulum takes minutes to change in direction. The directive with pendulum and dowsing rods is to move objects, only one step away from telekinesis. Working with the pendulum implies the hand holding the pendulum to be held still and the pendulum then moves, supposedly as a result of slight muscle reactions. Dowsing is similar. My experiencing of ideomotor effect is of a completely different level. The ideomotor drawing process moves the arm, hand and even bigger parts of the body. In effect, the body or limb becomes the device. The more I think about testing, the more I see opportunities in experimenting with ideomotor questioning under hypnosis.
Sounds interesting. Where did you read about it? (Robin Alliott quote - IM alphabet)
I have not been very careful. The quote is not from Robin Alliott himself but from Vanderbilt 1988, “Outline of the Motor Theory”. I found this on the website of Robin Alliott “Language and evolution”: http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/motor-ii.htm
Perhaps. Or there are just a few superficial similarities. His ideas seem much more traditionally materialistic, while yours are more metaphysical... So I think there are just superficial similarities. But I may be wrong.
Fact remains that I have been developing such a motor control alphabet whereas I recently learned that, within scientific research, the same idea is being substantiated. I have not studied into the work of Vanderbilt so I don’t know how concrete their idea is developed.
I would say from my brain. Simple electrical signals caused by the biochemistry of my brain. My brain simply gets a few electrical signals from my ears, my brain reacts to it and I react to it. Please note that is the same thing as when someone simply asks me to do something and I choose to comply
Vladimir Sivitsky wrote me this on a private note, in respect of your comments: “Earthborn is right, when speaks, that in a basis of IM-drawing is neurology, but is not right, when speaks that there is no external influence. Practically any influence is external for our nervous system. The question from computer science - what information is outside, as we receive it and as we interpret it.
At neurological act there is a reason too. What is the reason in your case
and why it is not present at the majority of other people? This deviation
from norm or latent ability all of us? Here questions, on which I search for
the answer in our research.
I am not convinced that hypnotism is anything special in this regard as people can't be forced under hypnotism to do things they really don't want to. Most skeptics are not convinced hypnotism is a way of making someone do things without their conscious volition.
That is largely a myth. People cán be forced to do things they don’t want to. This may happen under hypnosis but also under the influence of a strong mental suggestion paralising the victim. Often intense fear paralises, hypnotises people. In hypnotherapy it is a rule of ethics not to have people do or say things they don’t want to. This offeres security to the client. If people don’t want to be hypnotised, it is very difficult to hypnotise them. If people don’t want to do things, it is very difficult to make them do it against their will, even under hypnosis. But do not believe that it is not possible, because it is! Just think about the many legal testimonies of people who claim they have done things under hypnosis, that, in their normal state of mind, they would never have done.
My neurological self: my senses, muscles, nerves and brain.
Your conscious awareness is just able to represent you as a limited mirror image of self, a simpler version of your self, created from the neurological in- and output that you are invited to understand but cannot possibly comprehend in full. What you are subconsciously or unconsciously, is not something you are aware of and is therefore omitted or even dismissed for scientific purposes. This seems not correct nor does it do justice to what you really are, móre than your neurological self.
I'm not uncomfortable with it. I just never saw any evidence that an external force as you describe it actually exists. A hypnotist can do a suggestion, but that's not like the external force you describe: a force that is metaphysical and might even be able to see the future.
I see. So the great culture of seers of human tradition (from unknown shamans and american native medicine men to famous seers like Nostradamus) mean nothing to you. Why is that I wonder, other than that their sources remained unproven by lack of scientific methods ?
Yes, but this is pure neurology. It doesn't involve anything mystical as the thing you claim.
Yes, but it originates from within the same synergic system. A tree, symbol for the neurologic system, has many branches and roots. The roots and branches seem similar. One feeds from the air, the other from the soil. Perhaps what we are talking about is similar. What you describe feeds from soil and takes in water. What I talk about feeds from air and brings forth oxygin. Something like that.
There's where we disagree. Disagreeing is fine. Is it a proven fact that your arm will not rise against your will ? And what do you do with the simple thought that you may be able to do things while not having a will of your own anymore ? See, with ideomotor effect, there is no longer a will of your own as you know it. Am I sounding like dr. Spock now ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Aster
[B]

And that's a good thing. But in your case, the ideomotor force might return and with it, Max will return. Behind the door slammed shut must be a place where Max still resides until that same door is unlocked. I don't mean to frighten or upset you but that is just my thought. I too have cast out spirits and even suppressed the ideomotor effects for 6 or 7 years. Then something happened that made it come back in a force ten times stonger. No matter wether Mara or Max are parts of your subconscious self that you have now succesfully suppressed, that part of you is psychology/parapsychology that tends to brake out, become free, become conscious in order to be processed.

Max will never return so long as I never open that door. Nothing will trigger it..only me tampering with ideomotor methods again will bring it back. I am certain of this. I am very interested in what happened to you to cause this force to come back again.



That is an association you make and not nescessarily incorrect. It is not a christian thing to tempt fate. But it is not wrong to experiment with psychic talents that you may have. In any case, you would get protection. Protection is not depending upon something that the bible speaks of as sin.

Nope, I would not have protection regardless of whether or not Jesus would approve. I have too much fear inside for that. There would be too much scary suggestion entered into my mind, and I would end up just like I was before.

Besides, I firmly believe that the ideometer factor is all in the mind...literally. So called "Spirit guides" are really just a part of ourselves in our own subconscious. At least, this was my experience.

No it isn't. Ideomotor is everywhere in the body.
Spirit guides may very well be parts of ourselves, that is another thing than saying they don't exist or are delusions. We don't know much about the greater makeup of our being, do we ?

I disagree with you. I am positive about my experience. Your experience might be different than mine.

Sorry it took awhile for me to respond.

[Aster]

Max will never return so long as I never open that door. Nothing will trigger it..only me tampering with ideomotor methods again will bring it back. I am certain of this. I am very interested in what happened to you to cause this force to come back again.
Yes, tampering with IM methods may bring Max back. And if you are certain that this will happen, I should be the last to propose to you furthering the experiments with IM. Keep that door tight shut!

Me ? Separating, divorce and burn out caused it to come back.
Nope, I would not have protection regardless of whether or not Jesus would approve. I have too much fear inside for that. There would be too much scary suggestion entered into my mind, and I would end up just like I was before.
Yes. Allthough I have seen many sides to this, also the positive and good sides, I understand you completely when you say that this fear is of an ultimate nature, a borderline, something unacceptable to the system, beyond which you cannot and don't want to live; never ever do I want to have this experience of fear happen to me again either.
disagree with you. I am positive about my experience. Your experience might be different than mine.
I may not have understood you correctly at first. You wrote "in the mind" and that often pertains to the "head". But I have experienced IM in my entire body. This is perhaps where our experiences differ.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Aster
I may not have understood you correctly at first. You wrote "in the mind" and that often pertains to the "head". But I have experienced IM in my entire body. This is perhaps where our experiences differ.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

How did it happen in your whole body?

[Aster]

How did it happen in your whole body?

I can give you many examples, bad and good. One of the dearest examples I can give, is one evening, when I felt the profound presence of a feminine energy/entity touching my shoulders from the outside, like a gentle tapping. I was sitting at my desk, drawing, but felt as if this spirit invited me to stand up. As soon as I stood up, I felt the same gentle touch gradually moving me from the inside of my shoulders and pulling me to one side, directing me into a circular movement. Within a moment I was gently dancing with this spirit moving me, guiding me through the steps, from the inside. We were two, but as one in my body.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

What happens ideomotorically when the body moves the brain ? Is it a closed cirquit that you describe ?
I've never seen compelling evidence that it isn't, and am continually amazed at how great the closed cirquits function that are proven to exist.
The ideomotor act, as I am experiencing it, can be viewed as one such closed cirquit with two currents traveling in opposite directions; I project the body movements I experience into what I see as a clock or circular measuring device with two dials, each dial appointed to a movement of its own. One dial travels clockwise and the other anticlockwise. The dials may move like a yin and yang, represent action and reaction where the movement of one dial steers the movement of the other; deeper interaction suggests that the dials also move independently of each other and appear to have a will of their own. There is an individual intelligence present behind each of them. One dial may therefore represent the psychophysical force pertaining to self, and the other of overself. Perhaps what I describe can be related to what you describe: one dial may represent the brain moving the body. The other dial, the body moving the brain. This two dimensional perspective is incomplete however. In fact, the forces exist within a 3 dimensional material space and a multidimensional perhaps etheric subspace or parralel reality.
I can see your point but we want our information out this way.
Then prepare to be ridiculed and your ideas ignored at least as long as your lifetime. This is a serious warning! But if you follow a few simple rules, that are really not that unreasonable, you may not prove what you want to prove... but you will gain respect and learn a lot.
I hear you Earthborn. I am convinced that Vladimir knows what he is doing. Soon I will receive a copy of the print in Russian and I will have it translated in English, soon after that. From the Russian orinal text we will translate to all inviting nationalities and languages. Besides, I don’t see you rediculing me nor do I see you ignoring my ideas. But that is rare, and may not illustrate what you forsee will happen.

Our research one day will win us a Nobel prize, bring about a new vision that may change the whole concept and attitude of the JREF. And thus I see you benefit from this too if you stick around: after all, we need intelligent skeptics to become convinced of something they didn’t believe in at first, right ? I will ask Ray Hyman to write a comment that I can publish. We will face critisism and are open to contrary statements. Much depends on me though (or anyone else for that matter, someone who can testify to the same given talents) and that is that the ideomotor effect remains in tact. So, the talent and its works must be protected and conserved. Ideomotor act is a way to graphically inscribe the stones of a new scientific era. My work belongs in a museum, permanently.

One of the rules I see applicable, is to keep my personal and occult experiences separate from what we offer as a scientific basis for these experiences but also see where and how they may be connected or associated. This is where transpersonal psychology and research into the paranormal will help. I would be giving the wrong impression if that what we intend to do, is to present my own experiences as supporting evidence for any scientific claim at this point. Obviously we are not that far into our research. The first book will therefore be proposing the idea that there is some scientific basis for what I experienced. That scientific basis is ideomotor drawing.

Religious traditions are one of the institutions I suspect of this. And bloodline royalty too, as well as people high up on the unknown ladder in the new world order hierarchy.
Sorry, but I don't believe in such a thing. Quite the contrary: often scientific discoveries shock religious institutions and governments and they just have to cope with the implications. There is nothing in their power to stop them.
And that is how it should be. Although I am not practicing any religion, I am a firm believer that religious institutions – more so than the other examples - have and protect information pertaining to the other side; it is a side of life that we are left not to see nor be sure about, not to experiment with. We are stimulated to believe in something unscientific, a side that science is not ready to prove because there are no means. Being a living spirit or soul that exists beyond the mortality of a physical body as an intelligence is one example that fits this belief.

Ordinary people like me, but scientits too, are its victims.
How are scientists the victims?
Because they are deprived of information pertaining to the other side.
Do you believe they aren't allowed to do the research they want?
Not nescessarily, but religion often discourages to investigate into these matters. An experiencer or scientist exploring ideomotor effects was burned at the stake only a few hundred years ago. At present this seems different, but the roots of powerful religious institutions are still very much in place advising against such exprimenting. And there is something to say for that. Like everything else, there is a dark side about ideomotor trance experiencing; Ruby testifies to this. She and I survived an aspect of ideomotor experiencing and live to tell our story where many others have perished experimenting.
That they are silenced if they discover some part of the truth?
No idea, but how can we be sure ? I would not be surprised if one day we learn about such cases and certain methods of execution that we, today, have no idea about because these things are not in the open. I do not mean to portray myself as a paranoid, I am not. There are forces in play that don’t want information out. Take the subject of cloning for instance. Science may think it is technically, morally and ethically a good idea to clone animals, even humans or body parts, that kind of thing. But science sees only the material side, the biophysical side and is retrofitting in order to allow for shere progress. I don’t see science taking responsibility for the darker side of these experiments, ignorent of the consequences as they are, shaping a reality where these problems are omitted.
Are scientific journals censored? Sorry, but I can't imagine how that would work. Science is one of the most powerful forces of our society and a discovery made by one person can be made by many other people too. There is no way control it.
I hope you are right. Perhaps we talk from different perspectives and it may be that I am unclear in my attempt to speak from the light. See, I don’t mean to discuss from the idea of a conspiracy theory. That is the last thing I want to do here. There is always more than one side to the truth, including the side that intends to disprove it. God only knows what we should be protected from and why.

And shortly about the conspiracy theory: There are many who no longer live to tell us about this, as they were brutally silenced. JFK, BK, MLK. John Lennon and perhaps even Lee Harvey Oswald. I take it that this is not what your serious warning applies to L. To this day, the JFK trauma remains dorment into the psyche of every individual in the free world. The above murders have become suppressed super traumata, archetypal fears of global proportions. The free world no longer exists because it was murdered inside us, right there and then. And I believe we all know that, we can feel that deep inside us, but rather choose for the illusion of freedom that we’re left with. It’s only natural to choose to live unconscious of our deepest fears.

Science may get closer to the truth but is still a long way from home. And home is where I expect certain knowledge to be in existence; guarded and protected in order to keep up the appearance of “Gods” human power structures that, one day long gone, was set out to control free thinking and replace that with fears for the unknown. Today it is no different, allthough it may seem that way. To use your words, these fears were “gradually given a friendlier face”. But I say the unknown is known and has been known all along. I am not saying science is not free or disallowed to find out; merely discouraged at the psychic root of the individual by powers that do not allow trespassing on its territory and go against it’s prime directive.

Every institutionalised religion has interests to protect. Ask any Rabbi what “moon and moon and moon” and the existance of the An star world, the realms of Anstar, means according to the Tora. It is symbolic of the house that thrones consciousness and relates consciousness to cosmic mirrors in the sky and links life with the afterlife, just like the pre faraoian egyptian tradition was designed to. The Rabbi will not proceed into such conversation with you. The answers are kept away from non jews.

Obviously I have no proof to substantiate these ideas, but there are people who do.
Who?
I’ll keep that to myself if that is the same to you.
Sivitsky is not in favor of me getting acquainted with the Randi Institute.
This proves that you are already a better scientist than he is. You are willing to face criticism, and that's a very important part of science. Being critized is never pleasant, but it is necessary.
Yes, but please do not embarras me in front of a great friend. I am no scientist. I am merely an experiencer, an artist and a free minded researcher. I seek to raise the frequencies of my own mentality and I should not be compared to others like that.

But don't forget, our project is just 18 months old. Its an infant that is just learning to speak.
That's why I am teaching you to speak, so to speak.
And that is greatly appreciated;)

and last but not least protected.
Against what?
Perhaps conserved is a better term.

You could also experience the ideomotor effect before you comment.
I have experienced it, meaning I did experiment with a pendulum. I know firsthand how seductive it is to believe there is anything to it. That doesn't mean there is.
The pendulum is slow and not a very convincing ideomotor effect for exactly the reasons you say. What we seek to prove becomes much more convincing if you would allow the ideomotor force to utilise your body instead of the pendulum. That is what I do and think you, or Randi could do too.
I don't think it would convince him that it is in any way supernatural. For that you need to do more than just draw pictures.
Just draw pictures... argghh:( Supernatural is nonsense Earthborn, we all know that. Perhaps it’s better to speak of natural superabilities ? Ideomotor trance effects are examples of that. Where that touches psychic elements it is seen as paranormal. But even paranormal is just that because it has not been accepted as a coëxisting norm. Projections into the future is creating the future ? That idea scares me. So show me natural superiority over the case I represent. I bet you have nothing other to show for than James Randi’s bearded face and his pleasent character:p

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Hello Aster! :)

I've read this thread and I would like to make some comments.

Firstly Earthborn is giving you very valuable advice, especially on how to show scientists what you can do.
You mention the Nobel Prize. This is NOT given to scientific research based on anecdotes. (Do look at what happened to claims of 'Cold Fusion'.)

I realise that it may not be easy for you and Dr. Sivitsky to explain in a foreign language (English) what you have discovered. But you have had 18 months. By now, you should be able to summarise what you can do and some examples of why you think you can do it.

Let me give you an example:

I am the President of the British Society of Levitators (BSL). We are a registered charity in the United Kingdom (UK) and have obtained a patent from the UK Patent Office.

We teach people how to levitate (to negate the Earth's gravity field by using the electrical signals in their brain at the quantum level).
(That was the summary of what BSL can do.)
BSL makes a charge for this teaching, but since BSL is a charity, it is only to cover our costs (paying me a salary and living expenses).

We have numerous letters from BSL members stating how their lives have been changed by learning how to use this remarkable ability. These letters can be inspected at BSL Headquarters (please make an appointment first).
(That was the proof of what BSL can do.)

Many sceptics, especially on this board, have challenged the BSL to take a test with Mr. Randi and the JREF to claim the $1,000,000. Later I will explain why BSL has not done this.

Would you like to learn to levitate?

N.B. Please be aware that there are despicable people who will try to trick you and take your money. As I have shown above, BSL is a reputable organisation and has proved that levitation works.

[Aster]

Dear Glee,

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Where or how can I learn more about what BSL does ? Is there a website I could visit or brochure I could read ?

How and in which ways does levitation change a persons life ?

Please explain why BSL has not taken the Randi test.

As for despicable people who may be after tricking me or trying to take my money; I am not new to this world and have no money so there is nothing to take:-).

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by Aster
Dear Glee,

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Where or how can I learn more about what BSL does ? Is there a website I could visit or brochure I could read ?

How and in which ways does levitation change a persons life ?

Please explain why BSL has not taken the Randi test.

As for despicable people who may be after tricking me or trying to take my money; I am not new to this world and have no money so there is nothing to take:-).

Rgds.,
Aster.


Dear Aster,

I hope you will not be offended when I tell you that the BSL does not exist. (I did say it was just an example, but I deliberately made it appear genuine.)

Firstly there is nothing to stop me doing everything I claimed in the post.
I can register a business called the 'British Society of Levitators' with Companies House.
I can come up with charitable objectives (e.g. involving education) which will satisfy the Charity Commisioners.
The patent is a little trickier, but since the US Patent Office apparently endorses Immortality rings :rolleyes: , mere levitation should be easy.
'negate the Earth's gravity field by using the electrical signals in their brain at the quantum level' is typical pseudo-scientific meaningless jargon. I can do pages of that.
Numerous letters from satisfied clients - every year Nigerian crooks make about $1,000,000 from inviting gullible people to claim money from a Nigerian bank account. Getting people to just write letters of recommendation is trivial. (I could always write a few myself.)
Of course I have no idea how to levitate. But I have a great excuse why the BSL will not take the Randi test:

- levitation is a mental power, which will not work if there is a non-believer watching!

So if Mr. Randi, or any other neutral scientific observer watches me, then I can't levitate.
Any gullible person who convinces themselves that levitation exists will see what they want to see, so I can trick them out of their money.

I hope you understand that Earthborn would not be fooled for one minute by my unscientific claims.
Also that you need to show that your claims are not as shallow as mine. That will require scientific testing.

[Earthborn]

Aster:Perhaps what I describe can be related to what you describe: one dial may represent the brain moving the body. The other dial, the body moving the brain.Yes, this is an excellent analogy of what cyberneticists (people who study the mechanics of movement) call a 'feedback loop'.This two dimensional perspective is incomplete however. In fact, the forces exist within a 3 dimensional material space and a multidimensional perhaps etheric subspace or parralel reality.If such a etheric subspace exists and it has properties that have any real effect on the real world, then we can investigate it. This is why I want you show us your claims, so I (or others) can invent experiments that might prove its existance. As far as I know, no decent and conclusive evidence has ever been found to suggest that such a thing even exists. That could perhaps change if you are willing to cooperate.I am convinced that Vladimir knows what he is doing.I'm sorry, but I'm not.Our research one day will win us a Nobel prize, bring about a new vision that may change the whole concept and attitude of the JREF.Maybe so. But that won't happen if you don't stick to the rules of science, which really are not that unreasonable. If you resort to methods most scientists consider 'cheating' you will not be able to convince them of anything... Even if what you say is true!

One of the virtues scientists will appreciate is modesty. They won't be convinced at all by someone who claims to be able to win a Nobel Prize before the research even started. They not at all impressed by people who claim their investigations will start 'a new scientific era', 'a paradigm shift' or whatever. There are just too many crackpots who do that. Most New Scientific Eras started because of the work of far more modest people.have and protect information pertaining to the other side; it is a side of life that we are left not to see nor be sure about, not to experiment with.I really can't imagine how anyone could protect such information if it is there. If someone knows it, he must have discovered it somehow. If someone has discovered it, someone else can discover it too. There is no way to stop it.Because they are deprived of information pertaining to the other side.If there is such another side, and I have no opinion whether or not there is, and the scientists don't know about it... Then I think no one knows about it. Because they would be first to discover it.An experiencer or scientist exploring ideomotor effects was burned at the stake only a few hundred years ago.Who was that exactly? And do you honestly believe such a thing could still happen today?Take the subject of cloning for instance. Science may think it is technically, morally and ethically a good idea to clone animals, even humans or body parts, that kind of thing. But science sees only the material side, the biophysical side and is retrofitting in order to allow for shere progress. I don't see science taking responsibility for the darker side of these experiments, ignorent of the consequences as they are, shaping a reality where these problems are omitted.I think you are wrong, and cloning is an excellent example of this. Animal cloning is still very difficult today and most scientists in this field are very careful with applying it in anyway. There are bold plans for what it might bring in the future once the problems are worked out, but until then scientist who dares to do a careless experiment is looked down upon. Scientists do take responsibility for the darker sides of the experiments. They do consider the moral and ethical sides of everything they do.See, I don’t mean to discuss from the idea of a conspiracy theory. That is the last thing I want to do here.Well, I'm sorry... but it does sound like a conspiracy theory to me. And it sounds like a very unlikely one.I'll keep that to myself if that is the same to you.No, it isn't. At least tell us why you are afraid to tell it.Just draw pictures... argghh :(Well you have to admit that from the outside it looks just like you are drawing pictures. Of course I understand that you believe that there is much more to it than that, but please understand me when I say that, although I personally cast no judgement, it has to be proven that there actually is.Supernatural is nonsense Earthborn, we all know that. Perhaps it's better to speak of natural superabilities ?Call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change a thing.

"A Rose By Any Other Name Is Still Supernatural If It Flies Without A Plane!" :)

If the ideomotor drawing you do is somehow a manifestation of an 'ethereal plane' or a 'parallel reality' or 'another side' or whatever you want to call it, than it is what most people would understand 'supernatural' to be. Doesn't make a difference if you want to give it another name. Skeptics will not suddenly think it is less nonsense and suddenly take you more seriously. Only evidence that it is true will be convincing.

Glee:I hope you understand that Earthborn would not be fooled for one minute by my unscientific claims.But I was almost fooled into thinking you actually were making this claim. :)

No, I would not have accepted your claims unquestioningly. I would probably have started another thread and asked you loads of questions, proposed experiments, tried to figure out what it exactly was that you claim to do, asked for clarification for your pseudoscientific jargon... Phew, you just saved me a lot of work! :)

I would not have immediately rejected your claims, but I would get mighty suspicious if you would start saying "pay a 1000 quid and I'll tell you everything". I would certainly not give you a single penny or eurocentime. And not wanting to take Randi's challenge is usually a give away that someone is trying to scam... And you were!

You have shown very nicely why we need to careful accepting peoples claims. Not just Aster's claims, or the claims of the president of the British Society of Levitators... but also Sivitsky's claims of being a good scientist.

[Aster]

If such a etheric subspace exists and it has properties that have any real effect on the real world, then we can investigate it. This is why I want you show us your claims, so I (or others) can invent experiments that might prove its existance. As far as I know, no decent and conclusive evidence has ever been found to suggest that such a thing even exists. That could perhaps change if you are willing to cooperate.

I will do my best and understand that you are waiting for my list of claims. There are many scientists who investigate and experiment in this area. For instance:

From http://www.2think.org/hii/tfor.shtml

"One major school of quantum theory posits a multiplicity of universes; but what does that imply about the reality we live in? A simple experiment, familiar to every student of physics, involves light passing through slits in a barrier; its results, according to Oxford physicist Deutsch, lead inevitably to the idea that there are countless universes parallel to our own, through which some of the light must pass. This "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory has gained advocates in recent years, and Deutsch argues that it is time for scientists to face the full implications of this idea. (After all, the entire point of science is to help us understand the world we live in.) To that end, he outlines a new view of the multiverse (the total of all the parallel universes)."

"Deutsch presents his vision of reality by combining ideas from four "strands" of science: quantum physics, epistemology, the theory of computation, and modern evolutionary theory."

"Likewise, time travel into both the future and the past should be possible, though not in quite the form envisioned by science fiction writers; the trips would almost certainly be one-way, and they would likely take the travelers into different universes from the one they began in."

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

Most New Scientific Eras started because of the work of far more modest people.
Read what I write with a little humor or simply neglect it. Science has to understand and appreciate the fact that I am just an artist and an experiencer of something that I see is a true supernatural phenomenon. Name me one artist who created an iterest in his work through modesty:-)
I really can't imagine how anyone could protect such information if it is there. If someone knows it, he must have discovered it somehow. If someone has discovered it, someone else can discover it too. There is no way to stop it.
What is known and well protected originated somewhere far down the ladder of time and cultural evolution. I am confident of knowledge existing somewhere behind veils of religious institutions and nwo underground political organisations. JFK and BK, MLK, Marilyn Monroe, LHO and many others personify the sad proof of such underground organisations in existance today. The world is not to know certain truths even when they are redicovered. Science and law makes it difficult because of the proof it demands.
If there is such another side, and I have no opinion whether or not there is, and the scientists don't know about it... Then I think no one knows about it. Because they would be first to discover it.
The approach of science differs from the individu who experiences it. It is first the individu who knows about it. Science follows, to explain or explain away, surely not the other way around.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An experiencer or scientist exploring ideomotor effects was burned at the stake only a few hundred years ago.
Who was that exactly? And do you honestly believe such a thing could still happen today?
Sorry; should have written 'would be' in stead of 'was'. It depends how democracy, freedom and human rights coexist with modern and future power structures.
Scientists do take responsibility for the darker sides of the experiments. They do consider the moral and ethical sides of everything they do.
No doubt they consider this, but taking full responsibility for negative consequences they do or don't forsee is quite another thing. Take the concept of artificial intelligence for instance. We cheer scientific progress and at the same time we can forsee how tremendously huge the problems shall be that are created alongside; things are and will be out of control, as we can prove from the past.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll keep that to myself if that is the same to you.
No, it isn't. At least tell us why you are afraid to tell it.
Robert Dean.
Well you have to admit that from the outside it looks just like you are drawing pictures. Of course I understand that you believe that there is much more to it than that, but please understand me when I say that, although I personally cast no judgement, it has to be proven that there actually is.
From the outside it does NOT look like I am JUST drawing pictures. You don't look deep enough. You may not be equipped to see what there is to see nor are you in a position to judge that there is actually more to it that just drawings. The ideomotor drawing is not just like any other drawing, as you can see from the drawings I present. There is nothing supernatural or superconscious about ideomotor drawing, other than the contents of the messages being transmitted this way. The same counts for any dowser claiming his ability is supernatural. Randi says it is not supernatural, it is ideomotor effect. But Randi is missing the point. It is not the ideomotor effect that is claimed to be supernatural, it is the effect to which ideomotor act results; -to which ideomotor act is utilised.
Only evidence that it is true will be convincing.
Well, I have no problem with that. I am convinced that I am correct when simply claiming this: If I can prove this supernatural thing by means of two things, ideomotor effect and trancedental state of consciousness, then any other person can learn do it too, even better or different than I. I therefore opt once more that we, together, compose a test that should be participated in by mr. Randi himself, rather than me.

Rgds.,
Aster.
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by Aster
Dear Glee,

...

Where or how can I learn more about what BSL does ? Is there a website I could visit or brochure I could read ?

How and in which ways does levitation change a persons life ?

Please explain why BSL has not taken the Randi test.
...

Rgds.,
Aster.



Dear Aster,

I was hoping you would have commented on my revelation that I was making it all up about levitation.
I am not trying to make fun of you - I have a serious scientific purpose.

I note that you asked for more information about levitation. That is the scientific response, especially to a claim that appears to refute all our observations over hundreds of years and force science to make major changes in many well-established areas.

But I urge you to show more caution about claims like mine. Asking me what levitation feels like is far too trusting.
Of course it is incredibly unlikely that any form of levitation using brain power will ever be discovered. Yet a stranger on an Internet Board posts that claim and you appear to believe it immediately.

(Asking why BSL hasn't taken the million is good.)

And my serious scientific purpose is to alert you to the fact that people claim all sorts of things (including yourself).
Yet it is no proof at all if they have an impressive name, or are registered as a business, or provide a psuedo-scientific explanation.

What science wants, as earthborn has patiently explained to you, is a simple statement of what you can do and some double-blind experiments to prove it. Everything else is as meaningless as the British Society of Levitation.

[Aster]

Asking me what levitation feels like is far too trusting.
I don't think I asked you this:-) I am accustomed to ask people questions in the exact wording they use. My question was "How and in which ways does levitation change a persons life ?"
Yet a stranger on an Internet Board posts that claim and you appear to believe it immediately.
What I believe is that the result of my communication is the response I get. In that respect, I may sometimes use words that makes me appear a believer, yet what I really believe is conceiled and irrelevant. Having said that, I am ready to believe anything and anyone can sell me a second hand car for a new:-) True or untrue ?

Rgds.,
Aster.
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by Aster
I don't think I asked you this:-) I am accustomed to ask people questions in the exact wording they use. My question was "How and in which ways does levitation change a persons life ?"


Well the important point is that you appeared to believe immediately in levitation by brain power.
Yet hundreds of years of successful scientific method says this is not likely to exist. And there is zero evidence for it.
Sadly, this is also true of all psychic claims so far.

Originally posted by Aster
What I believe is that the result of my communication is the response I get. In that respect, I may sometimes use words that makes me appear a believer, yet what I really believe is conceiled and irrelevant. Having said that, I am ready to believe anything and anyone can sell me a second hand car for a new:-) True or untrue ?

Rgds.,
Aster.


We have an established body of information on second-hand car deals.
I don't know if you would buy a second-hand car at an inflated price (certainly such people do exist).
I do know that you have spent a long time posting here about your art, and yet I am still not sure what exactly you claim to be able to do.
Nor have you provided any more proof of your powers than the BSL does..

[Aster]

Well the important point is that you appeared to believe immediately in levitation by brain power.
That says as much about you as about me. I appear ready to believe because I ám ready to believe. I believe in mind over matter... I believe in a lot of things.
Sadly, this is also true of all psychic claims so far.
Should we therefore stop believing ? You write 'Sadly'. It appears that you are ready to believe because you regret that psychic claims have not been proven.
do know that you have spent a long time posting here about your art, and yet I am still not sure what exactly you claim to be able to do.
That is because I have not configurated any such claim yet.
Nor have you provided any more proof of your powers than the BSL does..
I disagree. I have put forward at least one claim and illustrate this with evidence. My evidence however is not admissable. I cannot help that. Supernatural experiences do not happen in everyones life, but in many lives they do. Just once in one lifetime, enough to turn the life of the experiencer around. To have such experiences scientifically proven is quite another thing, but, in certain cases, not unreasonable and perhaps not even undoable. But if you see the spirit of your departed loved one tonight, and the message is profound and verifyable, true beyond any doubt, then try to 'do it again' in a double blind test. That would be total nonsence and a misconception of reality. You could also not make a list of claims of things you can do. Because yóu didn't do it, you were merely a subject invited in the experience.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why religion and science remain two separate realms, each of which represents the truths that don't exist, from a different level. Most people in this world believe in God or spiritual powers. This is because it provides for them a reality-base that allows them to breathe. Material society suffocates people as long as they need to prove that they even exist. And the latter is created by people who don't believe anything before they have actually seen it or are presented by scientific proof.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by Aster
That says as much about you as about me. I appear ready to believe because I ám ready to believe. I believe in mind over matter... I believe in a lot of things.


But do you believe in things which are easy to check, yet never happen when tested?

Sadly, this is also true of all psychic claims so far.

Originally posted by Aster
Should we therefore stop believing ? You write 'Sadly'. It appears that you are ready to believe because you regret that psychic claims have not been proven.


I'll believe anything scientifically tested. I believe a man went to the Moon. I believe we can bounce a beam of light off the Moon. I believe that I can press plastic keys and 5 minutes later anyone with a computer can tell what keys I pressed.

Originally posted by Aster
That is because I have not configurated any such claim yet.


Well it would help if you could.

Originally posted by Aster
I disagree. I have put forward at least one claim and illustrate this with evidence. My evidence however is not admissable. I cannot help that. Supernatural experiences do not happen in everyones life, but in many lives they do. Just once in one lifetime, enough to turn the life of the experiencer around. To have such experiences scientifically proven is quite another thing, but, in certain cases, not unreasonable and perhaps not even undoable. But if you see the spirit of your departed loved one tonight, and the message is profound and verifyable, true beyond any doubt, then try to 'do it again' in a double blind test. That would be total nonsence and a misconception of reality. You could also not make a list of claims of things you can do. Because yóu didn't do it, you were merely a subject invited in the experience.


If a loved one could communicate with you once, why not several times?

Originally posted by Aster
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why religion and science remain two separate realms, each of which represents the truths that don't exist, from a different level.


Sorry, I don't understand. What 'truth that doesn't exist' does science represent?

Originally posted by Aster
Most people in this world believe in God or spiritual powers.


And some of those beliefs are completely contradictory.
Also many people send details of their bank account to Nigerians who have 'a large amount of money' waiting for them.
Regularly people send on e-mail messages about viruses that 'Bill gates has told them about.'
Saying something is true because numbers of people believe in it is not proof of anything.

[Aster]

But do you believe in things which are easy to check, yet never happen when tested?
Give me some examples.
I'll believe anything scientifically tested. I believe a man went to the Moon. I believe we can bounce a beam of light off the Moon. I believe that I can press plastic keys and 5 minutes later anyone with a computer can tell what keys I pressed.
But do you believe in another side of yourself that consciously transverses the illusion of time, place and space, and that this side of you guides you in all your descision making and choices ?
Ideomotor act brings that other side of you to the surface but only works when you give up every element that you believe to be you.
Well it would help if you could.
I understand this, it is not so simple however, and there is plenty of time.
If a loved one could communicate with you once, why not several times?
One time, several times, all the time. These are all possibilities. Yet it is not testable with the technical means of today. I believe that ideomotor act will provide such a means in the future. Spirit television is now unthinkable, but will be a reality then.
Sorry, I don't understand. What 'truth that doesn't exist' does science represent?
No truth exists. The only intelligent appraoch to knowledge is that we known nothing.
And some of those beliefs are completely contradictory.
That's because one person is different from the next. Look at the similarities rather than confuse yourself over the differences. Blavatski did a good job in that respect.
Also many people send details of their bank account to Nigerians who have 'a large amount of money' waiting for them.
You keep mentioning this. Did you fall into that trap ?
Saying something is true because numbers of people believe in it is not proof of anything.
Obviously. But a beliefsystem supported by many is more likely to behold truths than the beliefsystem of one single mind.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
But do you believe in things which are easy to check, yet never happen when tested?


Originally posted by Aster
Give me some examples.


Dowsing, animal psychics (why can't they say what the animal's name is?).

Originally posted by glee
I'll believe anything scientifically tested. I believe a man went to the Moon. I believe we can bounce a beam of light off the Moon. I believe that I can press plastic keys and 5 minutes later anyone with a computer can tell what keys I pressed.


Originally posted by Aster
But do you believe in another side of yourself that consciously transverses the illusion of time, place and space, and that this side of you guides you in all your descision making and choices ?
Ideomotor act brings that other side of you to the surface but only works when you give up every element that you believe to be you.


I don't believe in this, because there is no evidence for it.
You say the ideomotor act 'works' - how do you know it does?
(I also don't think time and space are an illusion. Why do you?)

Originally posted by glee
If a loved one could communicate with you once, why not several times?


Originally posted by Aster
One time, several times, all the time. These are all possibilities.


Do you also think it is possible that a Being created the World last Thursday, giving us all fake memories?
Do you also think it is possible that we are all asleep and machines are using our dreams to power their world?
Do you also think it is possible that I am an alien from Alpha Centuari using advanced mind control techniques to access the Internet?

Originally posted by Aster
Yet it is not testable with the technical means of today.


How do you know that? What technical means do we need?

Originally posted by Aster
I believe that ideomotor act will provide such a means in the future. Spirit television is now unthinkable, but will be a reality then.


How long in the future? Are there any signs of progress?

Originally posted by Aster
No truth exists. The only intelligent approach to knowledge is that we know nothing.


Please don't take this the wrong way.
As I sit here in the UK, typing on plastic keys, connected to a 'computer', which is joined by a 'telephone' to a local 'Internet Server', knowing that soon you and many others around the World (separated from me by space and time) will soon know exactly what keys I pressed (including perhaps some I didn't mean to!), I think three things:

- we know a lot
- you're using exactly the same 'technology' as I am
- your statement above is therefore gibberish

Originally posted by glee
And some of those (religious) beliefs are completely contradictory.


Originally posted by Aster
That's because one person is different from the next. Look at the similarities rather than confuse yourself over the differences. Blavatski did a good job in that respect.


Well Christians say Jesus was the Son of God. Judaism says he wasn't. Buddism says there isn't a God.
And this contradiction is explained by the fact that people are different?
Perhaps I am not the one who is confused?

Originally posted by glee
Also many people send details of their bank account to Nigerians who have 'a large amount of money' waiting for them.


Originally posted by Aster
You keep mentioning this. Did you fall into that trap ?


No, of course not. I teach it to pupils at my school (where we also believe in space, time, knowledge and religious contradictions).

Originally posted by glee
Saying something is true because numbers of people believe in it is not proof of anything.


Originally posted by Aster
Obviously. But a beliefsystem supported by many is more likely to behold truths than the belief system of one single mind.


So those masses of people who send bank details to Nigeria are more likely to 'behold truth'?

[Aster]

Dowsing, animal psychics (why can't they say what the animal's name is?).
I do believe in telecommunication between species and so I believe in communication with animals. It is not interesting to me why animals can't say their name; it's just plain ignorence. What I am interested in is why so many people will not, and therefore say they cannot, communicate with natures support system to this planet, let alone animals.

I believe in dowsing because dowsing is an ideomotor effect and I believe in ideomotor effect. I am not saying I believe all dowsers are correct or that dowsing is a method that simply cannot fail.
Dowsing is just a technique, a method that is scientifically proven to exist. I also believe in ideomotor skills. The better someones ideomotor skills, the better the results, even in testing procedures.

Originally posted by Aster
But do you believe in another side of yourself that consciously transverses the illusion of time, place and space, and that this side of you guides you in all your descision making and choices ?
Ideomotor act brings that other side of you to the surface but only works when you give up every element that you believe to be you.
I don't believe in this, because there is no evidence for it.
Yes there is. It starts with something that's often called the subconscious mind.
You say the ideomotor act 'works' - how do you know it does?
Now, that's an intelligent question! The answer is simple for me, but not comprehensive to others. Like Randi says: you have to experience ideomotor effect to know and be sure not only how it works, but THAT it works. And I am not saying works correctly or false, just that it works mind you. Your question is interesting because it answers Earthborns statement about my drawings, that they're just drawings like any other drawing. How can one tell the difference ? How can one tell the quality ? There is no question or doubt about the existance of ideomotor act. It exists and it can be tested. So I could be tested to determine wether or not, and in which quality, my drawings are ideomotorically produced.
(I also don't think time and space are an illusion. Why do you?)
Time, space and place are aspects of objects. They differ from object to object. I am not saying that time doesn't exist. I am just saying time exists in a form of understanding that differs from the idea that we have of it in general. Another thing is that your time may shift from you to the next person. This pheonomenon is very difficult to explain for me but I have experienced it several times and I know of people close to me that they have had similar experiences. The conclusions are always the same. Bewilderment.
Having experienced something that seems completely impossible.
Do you also think it is possible that a Being created the World last Thursday, giving us all fake memories?
No. I believe we are cocreators in one and the same reality and that false memories do not exist.
Do you also think it is possible that we are all asleep and machines are using our dreams to power their world?
I believe that we can speak of dead souls and living souls. As far as consciousness is concerned, I believe that we are indeed asleep as long as we see ourselves existing from a self conscious level and view the vaster part of our consciousness as non existant as long as science hasn't come up with proof for this. I also believe that you are not far off using the word machine. Most of what we think, do and feel is in fact an almost mechanical, rather autonomous, automatic process.
Do you also think it is possible that I am an alien from Alpha Centuari using advanced mind control techniques to access the Internet?
I am ready to believe you when you say you are, or what drives you is an alien from Alpha Centauri, when you say so. I have respect for your sense of reality. My own opinion is irrelevant.
How do you know that? What technical means do we need?
I suppose this is true because I have not seen a mechanical device like the brain that can transfer thought into a medium that is sensible; visable, audible. Yet our brain does it so it must exist and be true. Ideomotor effect will be the means upon which such a device will be based.
How long in the future? Are there any signs of progress?
That depends on how science treats people like me:-) No, but I would say soon, within this century. I am a sign of progress. I opt the idea and know the route that leads to this.
we know a lot
That is selfimportance.
your statement above is therefore gibberish
And you have lost a point in any respectable IQ-test.
And this contradiction is explained by the fact that people are different?
Yes. Devine teachings have been reproduced and reproduced. From one person to the next opinions changed; explanations, interpretations differ.
I teach it to pupils at my school (where we also believe in space, time, knowledge and religious contradictions).
The fact that you believe in religious contradictions teaches your students nothing. Why not teach the similarities of different religions ? Why ? Fear! Fear of loosing control over some impeding conviction that is blocking you. Haven't you understood the Floyd when the said: we don't need no education, we don't need no mind control ?....
So those masses of people who send bank details to Nigeria are more likely to 'behold truth'?
Good statement. No, but you ask me to answer with a truïsm. People do this because of need and greed.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Aster
I do believe in telecommunication between species and so I believe in communication with animals. It is not interesting to me why animals can't say their name; it's just plain ignorence. What I am interested in is why so many people will not, and therefore say they cannot, communicate with natures support system to this planet, let alone animals.

How do you justify your claim that many people deliberately do not use such skills? How do you know what people will or will not?

I believe in dowsing because dowsing is an ideomotor effect and I believe in ideomotor effect.

That is like saying you believe in astrology because you know that the stars exist. Ideomotor effect is a verifiable phenomenon. The leap of faith comes when you claim that ideomotor effect can convey information about things that are otherwise hidden.

I am not saying I believe all dowsers are correct or that dowsing is a method that simply cannot fail.
Dowsing is just a technique, a method that is scientifically proven to exist.

You do not need science to prove that dowsing exists, anyone can observe that. If, however, you can provide scientific documentation for dowsing being useful for detecting anything, you have a million $ coming.

I also believe in ideomotor skills. The better someones ideomotor skills, the better the results, even in testing procedures.

Which testing procedures?

*big snip*

Rgds.,
Aster.

[/B]

Hans

[Aster]

How do you justify your claim that many people deliberately do not use such skills? How do you know what people will or will not?
It is in plain sight. Look around you and see how people treat nature in general, animals in specific. See how people treat other people as a matter of fact. It has become a problem of global proportions. I'm not saying all people treat nature and animals badly, I am saying it is in plain sight that many people do. And it is propagated, as ignorence is propagated. People will not because of ignorence and lack of communication skills.
That is like saying you believe in astrology because you know that the stars exist. Ideomotor effect is a verifiable phenomenon. The leap of faith comes when you claim that ideomotor effect can convey information about things that are otherwise hidden.
You've got it. This is what I claim. Ideomotor effect does not take place correctly when you are not completely surrendering to it's calling. You've got to follow suit of something that seems to have a will of its own. This is also where skill becomes evident. You do not need science to prove that dowsing exists, anyone can observe that. If, however, you can provide scientific documentation for dowsing being useful for detecting anything, you have a million $ coming.
I agree, I didn't word it right. What I meant is that science proved dowsing to be a measurable ideomotor effect. And I am on my way to scientifically prove that ideomotor movement will be useful for detecting anything, no matter which method is used.
Which testing procedures?
Well, for instance JREF testings.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[glee]

Originally posted by Aster
I do believe in telecommunication between species and so I believe in communication with animals.

Why do you believe? What evidence is there?

It is not interesting to me why animals can't say their name; it's just plain ignorence.

So the owner can call their dog by name, and the dog responds. But when an animal psychic meets the dog, they can't find out the name.

What I am interested in is why so many people will not, and therefore say they cannot, communicate with natures support system to this planet, let alone animals.

There are a number of assumptions here:

- there is a natural planetary support system
- many people can communicate with it
- many people choose not to

Can you provide any evidence of any of those assumptions?


I believe in dowsing because dowsing is an ideomotor effect and I believe in ideomotor effect. I am not saying I believe all dowsers are correct or that dowsing is a method that simply cannot fail.
Dowsing is just a technique, a method that is scientifically proven to exist. I also believe in ideomotor skills. The better someones ideomotor skills, the better the results, even in testing procedures.

Dowsing is scientifically proven to exist? :rolleyes:
What do you mean by dowsing? If a man holds a dowsing rod, it will sometimes twitch. This is scientifically explained as a meaningless nerve effect (ideomotor).
However no dowser has ever detected anything better than at chance levels. The British Society of Dowsers refuse to be tested, saying they 'know' it's true.
What results do you have of testing procedures?

But do you believe in another side of yourself that consciously transverses the illusion of time, place and space, and that this side of you guides you in all your descision making and choices ?
Ideomotor act brings that other side of you to the surface but only works when you give up every element that you believe to be you.

glee:
I don't believe in this, because there is no evidence for it.

Yes there is. It starts with something that's often called the subconscious mind.

And your evidence that the subconscious mind can transverse time and space is?

glee:
You say the ideomotor act 'works' - how do you know it does?

Now, that's an intelligent question! The answer is simple for me, but not comprehensive to others. Like Randi says: you have to experience ideomotor effect to know and be sure not only how it works, but THAT it works. And I am not saying works correctly or false, just that it works mind you. Your question is interesting because it answers Earthborns statement about my drawings, that they're just drawings like any other drawing. How can one tell the difference ? How can one tell the quality ? There is no question or doubt about the existance of ideomotor act. It exists and it can be tested. So I could be tested to determine wether or not, and in which quality, my drawings are ideomotorically produced.

Do please cite Randi saying the above. My understanding is that he just wants to observe the results of psychics, not do it himself.
You're saying that if something doesn't work correctly, that proves it works? :confused:
I'm delighted that you think there is 'no doubt' about the ideomotor act. There's 'no doubt' that I can raise my eyebrows. Do you think that means I can travel in time and space, using just my eyebrows?


Time, space and place are aspects of objects. They differ from object to object. I am not saying that time doesn't exist. I am just saying time exists in a form of understanding that differs from the idea that we have of it in general. Another thing is that your time may shift from you to the next person. This pheonomenon is very difficult to explain for me but I have experienced it several times and I know of people close to me that they have had similar experiences. The conclusions are always the same. Bewilderment.
Having experienced something that seems completely impossible.

Sadly, reading your explanations is making me bewildered.

glee said:
Do you also think it is possible that a Being created the World last Thursday, giving us all fake memories?

No. I believe we are cocreators in one and the same reality and that false memories do not exist.

But the Being put that disbelief of false memories in your mind!

glee said:
Do you also think it is possible that we are all asleep and machines are using our dreams to power their world?

I believe that we can speak of dead souls and living souls. As far as consciousness is concerned, I believe that we are indeed asleep as long as we see ourselves existing from a self conscious level and view the vaster part of our consciousness as non existant as long as science hasn't come up with proof for this. I also believe that you are not far off using the word machine. Most of what we think, do and feel is in fact an almost mechanical, rather autonomous, automatic process.

Have you seen The Matrix, then?

glee said:
Do you also think it is possible that I am an alien from Alpha Centuari using advanced mind control techniques to access the Internet?

I am ready to believe you when you say you are, or what drives you is an alien from Alpha Centauri, when you say so. I have respect for your sense of reality. My own opinion is irrelevant.

Will you send me money to learn these advanced mind control techniques? If not, why not?

glee said:
How do you know that (spiritual TV)? What technical means do we need?

I suppose this is true because I have not seen a mechanical device like the brain that can transfer thought into a medium that is sensible; visable, audible. Yet our brain does it so it must exist and be true. Ideomotor effect will be the means upon which such a device will be based.

Please give an example of our brains transferring thought into a medium.

The fact that you believe in religious contradictions teaches your students nothing. Why not teach the similarities of different religions ? Why ? Fear! Fear of loosing control over some impeding conviction that is blocking you. Haven't you understood the Floyd when the said: we don't need no education, we don't need no mind control ?....

So you don't believe in religious contradictions?
Of course we teach a lot about major world religions.

Aster,
you make a large number of claims. Please can you provide some evidence for them

[Aster]

Why do you believe? What evidence is there?
Do you know that looking into your wives eyes is a form of non-verbal communication that has tremendous depth ? Many people have not ever tried looking, staring in each others eyes. And the power of such is healing, is disarming to a level you would not believe. Or do you ?

If a dog looks at you, you are instantly presented with its thought. This communication starts on the very basics of universal unification, which is, lets say for now, language. You may not get it, but that says something of your own dysfunctional communicative skills. So, you don't need scientific proof in advance to understand what the dogs thought is. And its communication is usually a lot more advanced than the things you THINK are suggested to you. You may read that the dog has to take a leak or that it is hungry. But you don't see that it transmits love, loyalty and dependence at the same time. You just have to learn to be open and receiptive and tune into its 'frequencies' so to speak.
So the owner can call their dog by name, and the dog responds. But when an animal psychic meets the dog, they can't find out the name.
I see. I misunderstood what you must have meant. A name is meaningless to the dog. It reacts on sound. A dog may respond to EX in the same manner as it responds to REX. I have not heared about animal psychics but you would be sitting opposed to a convincing psychic if he or she knows your name by psychic means.
there is a natural planetary support system
Just my way to speak of lifeforms on earth, plants, insects, mamals, humans, that kind of thing.
many people can communicate with it - many people choose not to - Can you provide any evidence of any of those assumptions?
I don't see the point. Firts of all, it seems pointless. Second it's such an easy question to ask randomly, you know:-(
I can't provide evidence for these statements but I could if you'd pay me for my time.
This is scientifically explained as a meaningless nerve effect (ideomotor).
By which IDIOT scientist ??? Meaningless nerve effect ? And what scientific proof does this scientist have for that ignorent explanation ? Who IS this scientist ? Can you back your statement here by evidence ? I doubt it!
What results do you have of testing procedures?
None, at this moment. Vladimir Sivitsky of psylab, Minsk and I are working out testing methods.
And your evidence that the subconscious mind can transverse time and space is?
Not 'can' but ís transversing time and space. Don't you dream ? Don't you experience natural trance ? Doesn't your mind wander off in time and space ? Did you ever meditate ? Are you accustomed to yoga or transmeditation ? Did you ever try remote viewing ? Did you never do any drugs that altered your perception ? My personal experience IS evidence and is endless.
I also see plenty of evidence of this in my daily practice of hypnotherapy. Ofcourse that doesn't count for nothing here.
Do please cite Randi saying the above. My understanding is that he just wants to observe the results of psychics, not do it himself.
Mr. Randi is convinced of how convincing the ideomotor experience can be and knows, by stating this, that you have to experience it yourself in order to completely understand it. He has never agreed to do it himself, he is probably never asked.
You're saying that if something doesn't work correctly, that proves it works?
Yes, I am. It may seem odd at first glance, but yes. The whole concept of ideomotor trance communication seems illogic and irrational, but as soon as you experience the effect in a state of trance, you'd understand. It is communciation between the subject (you, selfconscious) and another side of you (subconscious, superconscious, external suggestions, spirits, entities, whatever) and that in itself is an extremely complex psychic phenomenon.
Do you think that means I can travel in time and space, using just my eyebrows?
You think your answer is intelligent but it is not. It is however very funny, you have a good sense of humor. It is not so much the movement of your eyebrows that can make you travel in time but I can see from the movement of your eyes, when closed, and other non verbal reactions, if you are in fact traveling in time. But you would know first:-)
But the Being put that disbelief of false memories in your mind!
But they're not false, see. They are just another side of a truth, a truth that perhaps does not belong to you as it may be an aspect of someone else. What false memories are you speaking about anyway ? Are you talking about implants or so ?
Have you seen The Matrix, then?
Yes I did. Why ?
Will you send me money to learn these advanced mind control techniques? If not, why not?
I can learn for free somewhere else.
Please give an example of our brains transferring thought into a medium.
I agree, this may not be how we receive information. Thought may not be something that is transferred. Thouht may be something that is already present in it's original form in our own brain. The holographic principle of the universe. In other words, everything you think, you think inside my head. Lucky for me I am not aware of it because it is meaningless for me and my system does not attune me to it. Otherwise it is still the good old telepathy thing.
So you don't believe in religious contradictions?
It must serve a purpose otherwise it would'n't be practisized by you. To me, it is a complete waste of time and serves no purpose other than to understand the difference. That's all. So we can create corners on the basis of which we can fight more wars.
Of course we teach a lot about major world religions
Yes, so ?
you make a large number of claims. Please can you provide some evidence for them
It's an open frame discussion, Glee.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

Hello there Skeptics!

This is to inform you that I have been busy building a new website with regards to the ideomotor trance phenomenon. Allthough a lot still has to be done and many new pages have to be constructed and added, I wanted to let you know the url so you can peak in from time to time.

Ideomotor Net (http://www.ideomotor.net)

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

Incredible discovery! I wonder why noone here told me that another reason for being burried outside a (sacred) graveyard is when people are considered criminal. I just learned this from the discovery channel. The official police report about my brothers murder reads that he had robbed a discotec together with some people and consequently quarreled over the deviding of the proceeds, which sadly cost him his life. I say that, however the fact remains that I may not be able to reproduce the same act of drawing something now that happens in the future, this discovery adds to the proof of having produced a genuïne psychic and thus supernatural phenomenon, the foretelling of my brothers burial.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Todd H]

Being new here, I have to ask the regulars these questions...

1. Is Aster representative of most of the so-called "woo woos" that visit these forums?

2. When asked to prove their outlandish claims, do they all resort to spouting inane new age gibberish?

3. Do these people actually believe what they are saying or have they spewed this gobbledygook for so long that they've actually convinced themselves that it is true?

4. Will Ross and Rachel hook up on the series finale of Friends?

Thank you for your time. :)

[Kopji]

Todd H
Hello and welcome. The welcome wagon is probably still out drinking with Rudolph and Santa. :r:


Being new here, I have to ask the regulars these questions...

1. Is Aster representative of most of the so-called "woo woos" that visit these forums?


I have seen expressed at least once, a desire for more like him. Apparently when enough skeptics gather in one place the goat-like annoying and abrasive nature gets directed inward. :D

I kinda like Aster, seems like a more lucid guy than most. I don't really know if 'woo' is an offensive term or not, and I live with one. I know that I use it once in a while at home.

Artists generally live in a spontaneously creative state and can't account for it very well. Unfortunately we live in a world that allows an almost endless variety of choices to explain things we simply don't understand, or go bump in the night.

There is an interesting question I can't answer that asks something like: Does an artist who believes in "X" paint a better picture of "X" than one who does not? There is a value to being immersed in your subject, but it can become a barrier too.


2. When asked to prove their outlandish claims, do they all resort to spouting inane new age gibberish?


Humm, maybe logic and reason are a philosophical viewpoint not valued the same by everyone. The 'innane gibberish' is coming from a different culture where they do not hold the same exalted place they do in ours.


3. Do these people actually believe what they are saying or have they spewed this gobbledygook for so long that they've actually convinced themselves that it is true?


IMHO mostly "yes", they believe. Some are predators and don't believe. I meet lots of 'woos' and they all believe and are well meaning. (I think the predators are fairly rare.) I've noticed a common trait is an eerie inability to reason through choices properly. We just helped one 'woo lady' put some things in storage while she was going to be away for a long time. Pile of junk that wouldn't sell at a yard sale. Stuff like toilet paper and broken old couches the cats made love on once too often.


4. Will Ross and Rachel hook up on the series finale of Friends?


Yes, but the real surprise will be that Phoebe breaks up with Mike at the last second and marries Joey instead. (Would I collect a million dollars if this happens?) I almost never watch the show so I am uninfluenced by distracting psychic currents. ;)

[NullPointerException]

While I was experimenting with woo-woo methodologies, some 20 or 50 of them available on the net and in estoric writings, I could easily replicate everything described here. I can create the illusion of independent voices and images, disassociate from my own body, ignore sensory responses from different limbs, and generate different aspects of conciousness. It becomes very mundane after a while. My question, given the above, is how do you know your not just ignoring sensory responses from the nerves in your arm so it feels like someone is moving it? I have this happen to me every once in a while.

On the other hand, I find my subconcious mind is infinitely more intelligent and observant than my concious one. I wouldn't be surprised if it understood casuality sufficiently enough to predict with some accuracy minor events in the near future.

[Aster]

Excellent response, thank you.

Replicating things differs from things happening to you outside your own will. It's the other way around. What one person can do, another person can learn. After a while these things indeed become mundane as a result of practise. You seem to have a profound view on yourself and on reality, i.e. I love to hear you say that your subconscious mind is infinitely more intelligent than your conscious mind.

QUOTE]It becomes very mundane after a while. My question, given the above, is how do you know your not just ignoring sensory responses from the nerves in your arm so it feels like someone is moving it? I have this happen to me every once in a while.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring is not the issue. Ideomotor responses seem to devide the personality into at least two unequal partners. One side of the personality is regognized as our own, as our self. The other seems to act upon a will of its own, often opposite of what you know as your 'own' will. So.. are there two of us suddenly ? And that is no illusion!

That idea does not mean I'm ignoring responses, rather that I am consciously allowing these sensory responses from the nerves in my arm to freely continue.

The fact that ideomotor responses moves my body - and not as a result of my conscious choise or willful behavior - convincingly supports the idea that another entity is moving my limbs. Logically speaking it is just a part of myself that I never knew was there. It is extremely controversial to experience this. Some movement can even take place against my will. If so, what then is my will ?

I agree with you that this does not answer the question who is motoring the activity. Me as opposed to an alien entity that I host. Or is this all me ? Mind you, my claim here is NOT to prove the fact that ideomotor effect or automatic writing and drawing proves that external forces are responsible for the writings. But it cannot be excluded either. Personalities can be (re)conditioned and become different from what they originally were. External personalities are known to be capable of overwriting the original personality.

Okay: woo woo: Perhaps the question that needs to be answered here is how to redefine the self and see the I AM (God's name is I AM That I AM) in relation to a greater form of selfconsciousness, IM (IdeoMotor=Intelligentia Motor). What part of consciousness is self conscious and which part is not, if any such part even exists. Which part of self consciousness is me and which is the other, the greater me ? Can you come up with a sensible and pseudoscientific explanation ?

On the other hand, I find my subconcious mind is infinitely more intelligent and observant than my concious one. I wouldn't be surprised if it understood casuality sufficiently enough to predict with some accuracy minor events in the near future.[
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I subscribe to the idea that the mind is an identical copy of all that reality represents, like one part of a broken hologram. But would you feel comfortable when someone would assess your prediction of your brothers funeral as a minor event ?

To predict where a plane will crash in four years time and to be able to determine which airliner this is would be a major event. To predict what type of shoes someone will buy next is a minor event. I strongly believe that the subconscious mind is capable of all this.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Aster
It becomes very mundane after a while. My question, given the above, is how do you know your not just ignoring sensory responses from the nerves in your arm so it feels like someone is moving it? I have this happen to me every once in a while.

Ignoring is not the issue. Ideomotor responses seem to devide the personality into at least two unequal partners. One side of the personality is regognized as our own, as our self. The other seems to act upon a will of its own, often opposite of what you know as your 'own' will. So.. are there two of us suddenly ? And that is no illusion!

That idea does not mean I'm ignoring responses, rather that I am consciously allowing these sensory responses from the nerves in my arm to freely continue.

The fact that ideomotor responses moves my body - and not as a result of my conscious choise or willful behavior - convincingly supports the idea that another entity is moving my limbs. Logically speaking it is just a part of myself that I never knew was there. It is extremely controversial to experience this. Some movement can even take place against my will. If so, what then is my will ?

I agree with you that this does not answer the question who is motoring the activity. Me as opposed to an alien entity that I host. Or is this all me ? Mind you, my claim here is NOT to prove the fact that ideomotor effect or automatic writing and drawing proves that external forces are responsible for the writings. But it cannot be excluded either. Personalities can be (re)conditioned and become different from what they originally were. External personalities are known to be capable of overwriting the original personality.

Ideomotor phenomena are also known as motor automatisms. For an explanation of why they don't feel willed, read this article:

From American Psychologist July, 1999; Apparent Mental Causation: Sources of the Experience of Will, by Daniel M. Wegner and Thalia Wheatley of the University of Virginia:

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych102-summer2003/readings/freewill.pdf

[NullPointerException]

By minor I mean things within the scope of your own existance. Things you have had exposure to in some way or another.

Major predictions would be things for which there is little intuitive basis. For instance predicting that a suicide bomber would go to your favorite deli today so you go to a different restaurant.

[Aster]

Major predictions would be things for which there is little intuitive basis.

Okay, so the burrial of my brother (even his death or murder) would qualify as a major prediction because it is a thing for which there was little intuïtive basis.

The only intuïtive basis for the subconscious idea of my brother be dead or even murdered would be my own deathwish of him which was true at a certain point in my life, at least 8 years prior to his death. Psychologically this is a difficult carmic problem, especially when one subscribes to the idea of creating ones own reality.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

Ideomotor phenomena are also known as motor automatisms. For an explanation of why they don't feel willed, read this article:

I have just printed this article and will read it. Thank you for this. My remark prior to reading the article is that, unlike what you are suggesting, ideomotor does feel willed : it seems as if it has a strong will of its own, often contrary to your own.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[NullPointerException]

Aster, your subconcious probably picked up on things like where he would be buried based on information you knew about him. IT is common knowledge that in Jewish tradition criminals, heretics, and atheists aren't buried in the same cemetary as true believers.

[Aster]

Aster, your subconcious probably picked up on things like where he would be buried based on information you knew about him. Okay, but please explain to me which information I could possibly have known about him that would cause my subcontious to know where he would be buried, 4 years prior to his death ?

Besides that - and this is one the most important reasons why I view the case I represent as evidence of a true and sincere supernatural act - the painting does not explain who the grave is for. Knowing that the painting pertained to the death of my brother would have disrupted the purity of the process which, as far as I understand it today, is a continuous process that can be associated with actual or sanctifying grace.

Sceptics differ with me here, because it appears that many of them have a very different idea about what constitutes the supernatural.

IT is common knowledge that in Jewish tradition criminals, heretics, and atheists aren't buried in the same cemetary as true believers

I beg to differ with you about the fact that this is common knowledge. In any case I do not see the relevance. Me, nor anyone else in my family knew about this at that time.

[NullPointerException]

So your saying you never drove by a cemetary in Israel in your entire life Aster?

[Aster]

So your saying you never drove by a cemetary in Israel in your entire life Aster?

Why, is that so strange ? I have been in Israel only once in my life and that was in february 1983.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.

Me. I invented ideomotor art.

[Aster]

Me. I invented ideomotor art.

Pls. explain. maybe we can do some business.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[NullPointerException]

Like I said Aster, your subconcious probably picked it up even if you didn't. Maybe you passed someone on the street who commented on it. Maybe while you were sleeping you heard someone talking about it. Maybe you read a book that mentioned it, and hey maybe you remember it from genetic or ancestral memory(if such things exist).

[Aster]

Like I said Aster, your subconcious probably picked it up even if you didn't. Maybe you passed someone on the street who commented on it. Maybe while you were sleeping you heard someone talking about it. Maybe you read a book that mentioned it, and hey maybe you remember it from genetic or ancestral memory(if such things exist).

I am not sure if I understand what you are referring to.

What do you mean by 'it' ?

If my subconscious picks things up, even when I don't, does that imply that I have to view that as an external suggestion ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

[NullPointerException]

No, its like a database with protected access information. If you don't go through the appropriate steps to access the information you won't be given it. If the subconcious is a generally "protected" and passwords are concious attempts to access and/or random search than it is still internal it is just limited by the amount of short term and transitional memory you have. For instance why don't you always conciously remember that 1+1=2 and play that over and over in your short term memory? Thus we see that the subconcious is infinitely smarter because it would of course know and combine all rules in a relational fashion that the concious mind is incapable of doing so casually. Now in my case I'm just brilliant and have such finely tuned relational components that I am able to track down third generation protected data in parallel categories. For instance subsequent proding in my math department of the subconcious in specific fashions would reveal the faces and subject of every math teacher I could remember from non-trivial subjects. From there I can cross-reference to schools and subsequently to locations in that school and from there to people who would normally frequent those locations. I have been able to do this back more than 10 years through specific cross-referencing combined with selective relational reference collection. Thus it would not surprise me if a random access based on what was in your transitional memory before you began painting results in the display of a series of referential memories that resulted in a recognizable image or series of images that have symmetry due to the perculiar properties of the mind.

[Aster]

Thus it would not surprise me if a random access based on what was in your transitional memory before you began painting results in the display of a series of referential memories that resulted in a recognizable image or series of images that have symmetry due to the perculiar properties of the mind.

Your response is terrific. But slow down please my friend:-)... slow down just a bit and I may not loose you where I just start to catch on.

question:

Which - for example and in the case I represent - could be defined as the referential memories you are talking about ? (that resulted in a recognizable image or series of images that have symmetry due to the perculiar properties of the mind). Same for recognizable images/parallel or symmetric ? And which perculiar properties of the mind are you talking about in connection to the case I represent ?

In other words, would yóu be able to fill in your interesting theory with plausible examples in connection to the case I represent, that would lead to the manifestation of my experience, being:

1.) 1979: me painting of a grave with a coffin above it (depicting an awaiting/not finalised burrial) taking place outside cemetary walls.

2.) 1983: the actual burial of my brother's coffin in a grave located outside of cemetary walls.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[NullPointerException]

I can't search your mind but here is how it would work for me:
1979
-Reference Graveyards: Generate Military Cemetary
-Reference Walls: Determine Casual Visual Association
-XReference Justification for Walls: Keep People Out
-XReference Religion Cemetary: Holy Ground
-XReference Placement Signifigance Art: Focal point for the picture was the coffin, which was out of the grave and outside of the wall.
-Conclusion: I have issues with religion, possibly with exclusion from it, or issues about what will happen to me when I die.

1983
-New Reference: Brother Dies, Is buried outside of cemetary due to religion issues
-ProposedAutomatic Cross Reference Generated: Own fear of exclusion revived, painting remembered and associated with current event.
-Evaluation of Reference for Signifigance: I would accept it as coincidental having long ago analyzed the signifigance of the painting that I made in 1979 resulting in the subsequent removal of the Porposed Cross Reference.

Note I would add that the reason the events were Xreferenced is because they deal with my own fealings about the issue not because I think subconciously that I predict events in the future.

[NullPointerException]

Another thing to note is that dreams are all about you not other people. Ever had a dream where you had relations with someone you really like? Doesn't mean they are thinking about you, it means you are thinking about them. I don't see why unconcious painting should be any different.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Note I would add that the reason the events were Xreferenced is because they deal with my own fealings about the issue not because I think subconciously that I predict events in the future.

Aster might realize that you're talking about the Transderivational Search (TDS).

[Aster]

Another thing to note is that dreams are all about you not other people. Ever had a dream where you had relations with someone you really like? Doesn't mean they are thinking about you, it means you are thinking about them. I don't see why unconcious painting should be any different.

Do you have proof for your claims or is it your opinion which, imo, is no less interesting. You seem to believe/understand that communication with yourself merely produces feedback from yourself and that a bridge between two people communicating during dreamstate is impossible.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Aster
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc

Hello mr. Randi and everyone.

Allow me to introduce myself to you. My name is Aster. I am a professional ideomotor artist and communicator with over 20 years of experience creating automatic writings and drawings. I always work in a state of trance or self hypnosis.
{snip}

In other words, if I've got this right, you create works of art and writing but you feel like an external force is doing the work.

That's not the idiomotor effect, but it's slightly related to it.

Before I say this next part, let me point out that my areas of expertise are limited to classical music and computer programming. I am not an expert on anything medical--for expert opinions, you should consult an expert.

Frankly what it sounds like to me is a very mild form of schizophrenia. As long as it doesn't interfere with your life and relationships it should not be considered a bad thing, no worse than mild synesthesia. The section of the brain which sorts and tags some impulses as "internal imagination" and others as "external stimuli" is part of the self-other complex which fully develops during our "terrible twos" (i.e. when we're about 2 years old), and it's a section of the brain for which there's very little in the way of redundant circuits, so a relatively slight alteration in its function or anatomy can cause very confusing effects.

Again, I'm not an expert at this sort of thing, but I do think checking with a neuropsychologist is in order. There may be known strategies for maximizing your potential as a result of this condition.

The bit about the content of the painting really sounds to me like a coincidence. In the course of my life I've written so many tunes that some of them turn out sounding like other people's tunes which I hadn't heard yet. No supernatural explanation is required, as the proportion of my tunes which have that property can readily be explained by the combination of chance and immersion in the same musical culture as the other composers.

[DrMatt]

[extra post: delete button doesn't work]

[Aster]

Thank you for your kind response, dr Matt.
The bit about the content of the painting really sounds to me like a coincidence. In the course of my life I've written so many tunes that some of them turn out sounding like other people's tunes which I hadn't heard yet. No supernatural explanation is required, as the proportion of my tunes which have that property can readily be explained by the combination of chance and immersion in the same musical culture as the other composers. In my perspective the idea of a coincidence is an easy way out, a cop out if you will. What, according to you, would be the chance of actually drawing what I've been drawing, a burial situation totally out of the ordinary (so, specific circumstances/features) and this happening (same odd circumstances) years later to someone inside your own family ?

Your first comment about schizophrenia I have laid down in front of an expert and am awaiting his comment. Thanks.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Aster
In my perspective the idea of a coincidence is an easy way out, a cop out if you will.

You know, sometimes the easy way is the right way.

What, according to you, would be the chance of actually drawing what I've been drawing, a burial situation totally out of the ordinary (so, specific circumstances/features) and this happening (same odd circumstances) years later to someone inside your own family ?

Firstly, you said yourself that you do not claim that this picture is the result of ideomotor techiques. But anyway...
I have looked long and hard at your picture, and I have to say I have trouble interpreting it the way you do. It's not specifically about a family member. I'm not even sure it depicts a burial outside of the walls of a cemetary.
So I only have your word that the painting is what you say it is.

Now, even taking that into account, I would have thought that burials beside walls were not unheard of prior to your brother's funeral. Again, I only have your word that they are rare occurances.

Basically, Earthborn and others gave you some very level-headed advice about coincidences when you first announced this. I suggest you go and re-read them, because those explanations are not going to go away, even if you don't want to accept them.

[Prolix]

I have looked long and hard at your picture, and I have to say I have trouble interpreting it the way you do. It's not specifically about a family member. I'm not even sure it depicts a burial outside of the walls of a cemetary.



TheBoyPaj, How can I see the picture? Thanks.

[Aster]

Firstly, you said yourself that you do not claim that this picture is the result of ideomotor techiques. But anyway... Did I contradict myself ? You know, sometimes the easy way is the right way. Sometimes, but not every time.So I only have your word that the painting is what you say it is. Denial is easy, as easy as claiming coincidence.It's not specifically about a family member. I'm not even sure it depicts a burial outside of the walls of a cemetary. What áre you sure of ?Now, even taking that into account, I would have thought that burials beside walls were not unheard of prior to your brother's funeral. Again, I only have your word that they are rare occurances. Out of the ordinary situations translates to rare occasions ? People burried outside sacred soil are often criminals or in conflict with religious practices. Our situation was just like that; my brother was non religeous, not jewish, and supposedly an accomplice to a criminal act. Therein lies the cause for his murder, according to police.

Coïncidence, it is irrelevant to what I present. Two realities are touching, brother to brother, soul to soul; I drew it, he acted it, synchronicity ánd coincidence. No matter how peoples laws cover all aspects, there will be always that one or more exceptions to those laws. That's what makes the world go round. I believe what I represent is one such exceptions. A superconscious act, yet as natural as the stretches of nature itself.
Rgds.,
Aster.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Prolix
TheBoyPaj, How can I see the picture? Thanks.

The segment in question is shown here:

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict5.jpeg

Note, it is a smaller section of a larger painting.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Aster
Did I contradict myself ?

Yes, you did.

To my point that sometimes the easy way is the right way:Sometimes, but not every time.

And what is your reason for assuming that this is not one of those times?

Denial is easy, as easy as claiming coincidence.

You're right. It's astoundingly, embarrassingly easy. Because coincidences happen all the time, and are well within the realm of common experience. If someone tells me they managed to roll a die and got six sixes in a row, I will be similarly unimpressed.


Coïncidence, it is irrelevant to what I present. Two realities are touching, brother to brother, soul to soul; I drew it, he acted it, synchronicity ánd coincidence. No matter how peoples laws cover all aspects, there will be always that one or more exceptions to those laws. That's what makes the world go round. I believe what I represent is one such exceptions. A superconscious act, yet as natural as the stretches of nature itself.
Rgds.,
Aster.

You see, this is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't wash with me. Do you actually want to appear credible? This sort of non-specific waffle doesn't help your case.

[Aster]

Did I contradict myself ? Yes, you did. I'm not aware of it. The painting was not created as a direct result of automatic drawing, however the automatic moments were part of the process. A vital life force kept me inspired (obsessed) and in trance.You're right. It's astoundingly, embarrassingly easy. Because coincidences happen all the time, and are well within the realm of common experience. If someone tells me they managed to roll a die and got six sixes in a row, I will be similarly unimpressed. Okay look: if you see a stone wall behind which you see six crosses like gravestones, what does your mind tell you, what are you seeing ? Anything else but a graveyard, right ? And if you see a hole in the ground with a coffin resting on planks over that hole, on the other side of that same wall, what does your mind tell you, what are you seeing ? Anything else than a grave awaiting a burrial I assume, and nothing that points towards a common explanation for this, being, the grave is presumably for a criminal or there are reasons why the individual cannot be burried in sacred ground. But again, what dó you see if not that ?
Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

In other words, if I've got this right, you create works of art and writing but you feel like an external force is doing the work.

That's not the idiomotor effect, but it's slightly related to it. According to psychologist Vladimir Sivitsky my automatic drawings are a typical example of ideomotor effect. The mechanism of creating figures ideomotorically is not a secret for science. For an explanation of IM-drawing it is not necessary to involve external forces. He states that what is drawn is likely to be an internal mechanism of the body, one of which is ideomotor effect.

Most interesting is the analysis of a condition, when the man can draw with the help of IM an image which is represented in the automatic drawing. Here it is possible to find influence of external forces - from genetic and prenatal information up to electromagnetic and gravitational sensitivity of our nervous system.Frankly what it sounds like to me is a very mild form of schizophrenia. Vladimir Sivitsky: "Each human is schizophrenik, the problem consists in what level schizophrenia is necessary to consider normal, and what displays illness. As Andrej Halimanovich spoke at the seminar of April 4, 2002, your behaviour faster indemnification of negative influence, than its result. That is while draw - all normally. But it concerns only the process of ideomotor drawing, not the interpretation the drawings."

Rgds.,
Aster.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Aster
I'm not aware of it. The painting was not created as a direct result of automatic drawing, however the automatic moments were part of the process. A vital life force kept me inspired (obsessed) and in trance.

Well, over in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17815) you said

Please be reminded that this is not ideomotor work.

But you are using it as an example to back up your claims about ideomotor phenomena. We can only go on what you say. If they are unrelated, you should make that clear.


Okay look: if you see a stone wall behind which you see six crosses like gravestones, what does your mind tell you, what are you seeing ? Anything else but a graveyard, right ? And if you see a hole in the ground with a coffin resting on planks over that hole, on the other side of that same wall, what does your mind tell you, what are you seeing ? Anything else than a grave awaiting a burrial I assume, and nothing that points towards a common explanation for this, being, the grave is presumably for a criminal or there are reasons why the individual cannot be burried in sacred ground. But again, what dó you see if not that ?


Well, there is a wall, and there are crosses behind it. It is not clear that the picture of the grave is supposed to be outside that graveyard. There is also what appears to be a spiral of gravestones right beside the open grave. This implies that there are other graves beside the open one, so it may simply be an image of a different part of the graveyard juxtaposed with an image of the graveyard seen from a distance. There is also another large memorial cross in the middle of the spiral, also on the same side of the wall as the open grave.

Let's look at the entire picture:

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict1.jpeg

There's also a giant floating eyeball beside the graves and a sort of corridor with coach lamps directly above the churchyard. Are we to take the position of these objects literally as well? If not, why should the positioning of the wall and grave be so important?

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for your kind response, dr Matt.
In my perspective the idea of a coincidence is an easy way out, a cop out if you will. What, according to you, would be the chance of actually drawing what I've been drawing, a burial situation totally out of the ordinary (so, specific circumstances/features) and this happening (same odd circumstances) years later to someone inside your own family ?

Your first comment about schizophrenia I have laid down in front of an expert and am awaiting his comment. Thanks.

Rgds.,
Aster.

Given that the circumstances were noted to resemble the painting after the fact, that's 100%.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by DrMatt


Given that the circumstances were noted to resemble the painting after the fact, that's 100%.

To which I'll add that every composer born more than 100 years ago who every composed a lament or mass for the dead has subsequently died. You'd be surprised how many times people get all wide-eyed about this and say "The composer must have been magically foreseeing their own death!" Otherwise, who would ever imagine that such a person might die some day! ;)

This "Sivitsky" doesn't impress me. The painting, however, is very informative. If you believe you actually saw something resembling this at your friend's grave, that tells us plenty. Without your explanatory text, frankly I would have been hard pressed to see what the painting had to do with the grave you'd mentioned. Given a typical gallery of amateur psychedelic art, I'd have been hard-pressed to pick this one out as the painting in question.

If you have an ability which is testable, let us know.

[Aster]

But you are using it as an example to back up your claims about ideomotor phenomena. We can only go on what you say. If they are unrelated, you should make that clear.

They're not unrelated. The painting should not be viewed as an ideomotor drawing per sé. You have to understand how ideomotor effect, at least in my case, comes about. It is a function of natural trance or (selfinduced) hypnosis. With regards to the painting, it was created on a pencil base that was later painted over to add the colours. At the time of drawing the base with a pencil, the trancedental or hypnotic states inspired the ideomotor effects, became functional, a process which draws lines in a way of its own; I was just recognizing this technique and used it as well as I could but other lines and forms drawn ideomotorically were also overruled by my own will as I disagreed with its course.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[scribbles]

Hi. Just to let you know that I just got done reading all the posts on
JREF
> on the Ideomotor Effect and Communication. I read
> for a long time and I have to say that it was very amazing. I want you to
> know that I DO KNOW that the ideomotor effect DOES create some kind of
random
> series of supernatural occurences. I believe that the ideomotor effect that
> you and I are experiencing somehow "tweaks" or "jumps outside" the
boundaries
> of the natural building blocks of reality, space, and time. Almost like
some
> kind of machine that we do not know how it works. Do you remember the
first
> frantic email I ever sent you? One of your drawings was VERY familiar to
me
> and I had never even SEEN it before!
> And not only that, the phenomena that you mention fits in to what I was
> trying to EXPLAIN to people around here! You still remain the only one who
> knows that this effect WORKS. I have no one to turn to but you. Why is it
> like that? What are we on to? Do you still have that drawing I sent that
you
> said looked like a supernatural being receiving or manipulating ether? Can
I
> still have an ideomotor account with you? Do you think we can somehow
channel
> a way to figure out why one supernatual occurence happens and not another?
I
> believe that it IS based on information and if we could read or understand
> it, maybe we can invent something or communicate to other worlds more
> effectively, or maybe even figure out the reason the universe is here. I
know
> that through my drawings and scribbles and writings, they always gave me some
kind
> of insight to another realm and something always happens that I only I can
> know---until I saw that drawing you did that I saw a couple years ago on
your
> other site. Can you put that site back up just for a couple days so that I
> can see that drawing again? I have many drawings for you to see as well,
but
> if you remember, I have the hardest time getting to a scanner!
>
> I want you to know that I know for a FACT that these drawings and
writings
> and scribbles produce something. I don't know how it works or why. It just
> does. And in it's own way. I really want to figure this out if it is at
all
> possible. We may need each other in order to do it. That just may be the
way
> that it is. I have searched. There is no one else who understands this frequency we have somehow channeled. I mean
> they can "think" it and hear what we are saying, but they just don't SEEM to
> care and I know that they may not understand what I am trying to say. Maybe
I
> don't even understand myself. Where do we go from here?

scribbles

[Ashles]

Where did you copy all that from?

[scribbles]

I copied it from an email I sent Aster. These are things I need to say. I wrote more to this though since I put the email on the board.

[Dr Adequate]

Greetings scribbles and welcome to the forums.
Originally posted by scribbles
I believe that the ideomotor effect that you and I are experiencing somehow "tweaks" or "jumps outside" the boundaries of the natural building blocks of reality, space, and time.
Why?

[Ashles]

The lid of Pandora's box creaks once again...

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Aster
In time, perhaps, when the right test is available.

This sounds all too familiar to me...

"Gobbledeegoop." -
from the Hal Ashby film BEING THERE

[KRAMER]

It's astounding to me that someone as obviously brilliant as EARTHBORN has put so much time and effort into engaging this person in his/her delusions. I have nothing but admiration for such perseverance and patience.

I would also KILL to have so much free time.

[KRAMER]

Oh forget it.

[scribbles]

my drawings are VERY much alike in nature as my friend's Aster. Mostly- and this is a little eerie- and I speak the truth. My drawings become MORE ENERGIZED and MORE GENUINE *BEFORE* someone I am close to or know...DIES. I am just starting to figure that out. And not to mention all the other strange things that lurk "in life" in the wake of my scribbles- then images- then drawings...All "automatic". I live near Jack Whittaker. This may not be relevant, but he one the record powerball lottery. (314 million). I scribbled like crazy bizarre images on many pieces of paper BEFORE Jesse died in his house. Jesse was a good friend of mine. Believe me, I could a likeness in the drawings. THEN, Brandi (Jack Whittaker's Grand Daughter), my good friend too, disappeared December 4th. I scribbled and drew and wrote in a hypnotic state for hours again. Almost like the entire story unfolding in some kind of "wormhole on paper". When I scribble and automatically "draw", there is a region in my mind that opens up... And I do not think it has anything to do with the mechanism of the natural makeup of the brain. I am just stating that my drawings DO become more energetic near a death before or after, (of someone I know). Not all the time but sometimes. The idea to me is a bit unnerving, but if it the path to understanding the universe and how it got here or what is out there, then so be it. I will keep developing my ideomotor art and communication.

[Ashles]

So you scribble on bits of paper at erratic intervals and frequency. Also in the world things happen.

And you are drawing a link between these two because... ?

Why don't you try not doing the drawings for a bit?

It might do you some good - it sounds like you're getting a bit obsessive about it
And it sounds like you aren't even relating what you draw to subsequent events. Just the fact that you scribble in general. And that things happen externally.

You have no reason to suspect any type of link.

If you draw something then write underneath specifically what it is predicting, and then this event happens then that would be impressive.
If you can't do this then you are not actually predicting anything. Just trying to connect 2 unrelated things after the fact.

I had coffee without sugar today, something I never normally do (but someone pressed the wrong button). Then 2 hostages were freed in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4115975.stm) .
Should I connect my strange coffee episode with this? Maybe my coffee error was a prediction?

Sounds stupid? Maybe.

Have a good hard think about what you are doing and what you are claiming. Then try and see if it is all that different from my example.

[scribbles]

I am inexperienced with the reply I am going to give, but if it were not for my scribbles, (I realize you have not seen them yet) I would have never of known about your coffee preference, (I like mine WTHOUT sugar...INSTANT!!) nor would of I had ever known about the freed hostages. I read the article... very kool!! Thanks for the info. Scribbling has many different uses for me. It is a language for me and does many MANY things for my mind. I am not saying that they MAKE things HAPPEN, they just open a window so that I can see more clearly into a realm that is there, oh yes, tis there all right, only in another dimension. I can communicate with my sub-conscious as well. That is very fun too, but it takes alot of practice to learn, because you have to learn to be in a trance of a kind; Alas! The outcome is Trance Art via the Ideomotor effect!! My scribbles DO work. And I believe them to be supernatural and paranormal in nature. I never know what butterfly effect they will produce next, but my cup of coffee this morning was wonderful! And I am glad to hear about the good news of those people being set free!

[Aster]

It's astounding to me that someone as obviously brilliant as EARTHBORN has put so much time and effort into engaging this person in his/her delusions. I have nothing but admiration for such perseverance and patience.

A stereotype (empty and boring) statement by someone who can't think of anything better than to kiss butt in order to connect to those who have something intelligent to say.

Experiencing the unexplained makes one feel very close to an own form of excellence and brilliance; what happens to or with experiencers connects them with thát what lays dorment beyond their general idea of Self. This can hardly be explained with words or even images, it has to be experienced. Ideomotor effect is one such experiencing. Perhaps brilliant people, skeptics and supporters of the supernatural alike, don't pass this by unnoticed. Especially not when presented before them in a format that intrigues them. They may equally be intrigued by the phenomenon, yet differ in opnion where interpretations are concerned. After all, the very flame of the JREF opportunity here, is the idea that the supernatural does not exist unless sufficient proof is presented. Such statement does not rule out that the supernatural exists.

Perhaps what I have been meaning to say all this time is this; the supernatural act exists, not in one man persé as a devine given, but latently present in all man. Ideomotor effect is the perfect tool to evoke the supernatural act within a man and is therefore only a smart and intelligent thing to try and do and test. I opted already that in that respect mr. Randi himself could be tested and bring about something of a supernatural kind that he could otherwise never do or perform.

I offer that Earthborn's heart may be wide open to that (JREF) flame whereas her mind may almost be as tightly closed as yours until proven otherwise. Yes, she spent much time with my presentation here and I am sure she would have spent even more time if I would have engaged in the testing procedures she offered. I have not been ready to do so and I believe I now understand better why.

[scribbles]

Okay everybody, here goes... This may be sliding off the subject a LITTLE, but in a way I think it may be a scribble of WORDS & NUMBERS of a sort. Just thought I would post this for a little fun just to get the opinion of others here on this board on the Ideomotor Art and Communication. It is of the thelemic equation. These words come about by a simple equation when incremented. I am careful on what I believe in, but I think it just MAY BE A SUPERNATURAL COMMUNICATION! The equation is 1=A=0 and so on....





The Numbers & the Words by 1=A=0
these are words formed by a mere numerical equation...




0 = A, A.'. A.'.

1 = B, AB, BA

2 = C, ABBA

3 = D, o

4 = E, EA

5 = F, AF, BE

6 = G, oo

7 = H, AHA, HA, AH

8 = I, I, IA

9 = J, ooo

10 = K, HAD, KA, DEAD, EDDA

11 = L, AL, LA, ABK, HE, ADI, AID, FACE, ID, KAABA, KA'BA, HEA

12 = M, MA, AM, AMA, AGGA, ACHAD, ALBA, DECAD, BAAL, JAH

13 = N, NA, AN, AKAD, HADAD, BABAL, HAG

14 = O, O, HEAD, CABALA, CABAL, B'N

15 = P, OB, EL, IAH, ADAM, DIE, MAD

16 = Q, ABEL, BEL, IBAH, BELA, EGG, D.N.A, DECADE, AND, ME

17 = R, OD, DO, RA, EN, CAP, CHIA, BABEL, FAMA

18 = S, ABRA, HEH, AF NA, FAN, GAEIA, LEDA, BEN, GAMA, LAH

19 = T, ARCA, ARC, MAHA, NAGA, LI, BLADE, FIG, HAM, GAN, OF , APE

20 = U, I AM, AIMA, ADAR, CHAL, GO, END

21 = V, AIN, NIA, HO, HOA, ANI, ACT, CAT, AUB, KALA, ODE, HEKA

22 = W, IAO, OAI, IO, OI, ABBA-AIMA, ALL, MAGE, CARD, ALLA, KAMA, DIAL, FLAG, ILDA, KABALA, DANCE, GEM, MEGA, HIDE, AJNA, TAD

23 = X, GOD, CODE, LAM, LAMA, ADAMI, CAIN, RACE, CARE, RAJA, PI, ARGA, ELI, AUD,BALAL, BES, H.P.B., K'AN, AKKAD, HAND, DOG

24 = Y, COI, HOD, AMMA, RA-HA, LAMB, EDEN, DIANA, DARE, FEEL, EGO, RED, BLACK, BALM, CALL, BANDAH, HARA, AVD, FAIL

25 = Z, MAN, EVA, AGAPE, BIND, AMN, MANA, BREAD, LO, BIBLE, AIR, PEACE, YAB, DENEB, ASH, AZA, ASHA, CAUDA, AVE, KALE

26 = OM, HAIL, ATAH, MAGI, ASI, ISA, IS, OBEAH, BENI, PEH, CHEN, DUAD, ABASED, SEE, DEEP, MAKE, ACHOD, NANA, ABMN, MABN

27 = IT, ARK, HIM, HUA, AGNI, PACHAD, FALL, NO, ON, KEN, DAN, RADHA, ECHO, MEDIA, BELL, BELLA, HEBEL

28 = I AM I, PAN, LIFE, AKASA, DEVA, QABALA, KALAH, HERA, HER, MEM, HIGH, MAGIC, HEAR, COCK, CHANCE, FATE, K'BR, NABO, KAKI, GANJA, THC

29 = AMEN, NEMA, MARA, BINAH, KALI, EVE, SHE, EHBEN, RAMA, DAATH, ANEMA, EPIC, GATE, IAHO, IOH, ALLAH, FOCI, DIS, AIRE, IRE, SEED, HALL, LEO, RAM, CAMEL, BIRD, GRACE

30 = EHIEH, ATEH, ETH, ANKH, LAMED, NAGUAL, KU, ASAM, JAHO, PAPA, VACH, E.O.M., ARCADIA, FINE, GRADE, ARGHA, ADON, BESH, CREED, THE, DARD, IMAGE

31 = I AM HE, ONE, CHILD, AEON, BEN HADAD, BETH, MAAT, BALANCE, NAAS, BOND, FIELD, VEGA, DISC, MAGNA, LAMIA, FEW

32 = AUM, MAU, ORB, EYE, KAPH, TEACH, BEING, HERE, BEGIN, CHANGE, COME, I DARE, HERALD, GNANA, MU, NEBO, PAEAN, FLAME, HADES, L.S.D., KALU, NIL, AREL, AKAWA, ANAT, PLACE, FEET, BONE, NAIL

33 = NU, LAW, KHEM, TAO, NARADA, DJIN, ALPHA, APAS, COR, BRIH, BRIAH, HAOMA, OCEAN, HADDU, UNA, BABUL, CONE, SABAO, VAM, HATHA, ANU, ANIMA, CIRCE, HIS, BRIDE, SEAL, DEATH, HELL, EDOM, CANDLE, DOME, HANGED, DEAD GOD, OM-HA!

34 = ANGEL, ARRA, BUDDHA, BANDAR, HEX, GOLD, GRAAL, CHALICE GEMMA, ROD, CLEAR, APEP, AHEPI, CH'IEN, PAGAN, WICCA, ALMEH, EASAM, BLACK AGE

35 = QABALAH, ION, IGNI, AION, ADASHA, MADIM, KOKAB, ENKI, ASAR, HCOMA, BELIAL, ABADDON, IBIS, LAYA, SARA, BARDO, UP, DUBHE, K'SHA, LOCI, ACATH, OVA, OV

36 = KHABS, CHAKRA, ELOAH, MERCABA, HEIR, CHIT, TEN, GLOBE, TARA, HECATE, DRACO, IDOL, LINE, ART, MAYA, MIND, BLIND, DREAM, WAKE, OMEGA, BLUE, ROBE, DEGREE, DAGGER, PAIN, DEAD MAN, HOLE, SEEK, WO', YAM, NILE, KABIR, AQUA, SABEAN, IBEX, IGIGI, DAGON, ALIEN, ABRA-ABRA

37 = HADIT, KIBLAH, ALEPH, OX, KHU, KING, GODHEAD, BRAMA, HAMSA, ARHAN, KAMAEL, SAT, UR, AUR, AURA, SEBEK, DUKE, CUP, KAKRA, OMDI, ELDI, BOW, HEXAD, ENNEAD, BECOME, OLAM, LIBRA, CRADLE, CLAY, COIN, GOOD, REBEL, AHAMSA, IRIE, ICON

38 = KEY, MAGICK, WAND, AXLE, COPHA, MAHAT, KANPA, ADONAI, TAT, ADITI, ALHIM, ADAM-ADAMI, CHESED, HANSA, JIVA, LAMP, HIDDEN, SELF, COPH, SCARAB, CHARM, ADORE, MANNA, FISH, HOR, FIVE, NINE, NAMAN, HAVE, EMPEH, ALEMBIC, LINGA, OY, SACR', HEMP, 1ST, LODGE

39 = AUM HA, BOAZ, JACHIN, TAU, ATU, MARK, BOOK, HEKAS, SEKHA, ABSU, NANNA, SHADDAI, SPACE, KARMA, MANDALA, DISK, LEFT, BRAIN, GENII, HAWK, WAR, SCAPE, GOAT, SABBAT, JUDAH, FAITH, NEW, AMONA, UT, ELY, GUNA, ANAHATA, KHALU, MAKARA, GAIOL, SADIK, ORAI, AESAR

40 = BEHOLD, BABALON, MALKAH, NIOBE, HEKAT, NUAH, ABOVE, NOGAH, ENOCH, JEHU, MAZDA, OGDOAD, K'UN, ELECT, OATH, HOPE, HE-SHE, SABIAN, MASK, KALLI, MADMAN, GEMS, BLACK EGG, JECHIDAH, EXCEED

41 = SET, BAOTH, KALI-MA, PTAH, GODS, PATH, NADIR, CHAOS, CHANT, WANGA, YOD, EAST, RADICAL, ADEPT, GIMEL, VAU, LAMAS, RAY, UNI, VAHAN, HANDS, SACRE, THE FACE, FAIR FACE, DAGDIEL, MELEK, MESHA, FLASH, MIDDLE, BONDAGE, ABRACADABRA

42 = BEAST, BODY, GRAIL, PIT, GULF, DUAT, I AM ALL, ALONE, MONAD, NOMAD, BUDDHI, HERO, DOVE, FORCE, ZEN, ENASH, ATHAME, KOSA, KADESH, ADANATH, BOHU, COLEL, SHAAR, MEHADAVA, CHANDRA, ZOD, ESAU, ALLU, HECTEGA, SHEN, DAMON, ALGOL, VENDIAD

43 = HAD-NU, I AM GOD, IHVH, NEMO, OMEN, BLOOD, SECT, MANAS, SEER, JOHN, HANOCH, AWARE, SAMECH, HANIEL, NINIB, UDU, BULL, GARDEN, TIME, PLANE, CURE, NOBLE, NAIL, ATHENA, YANG, MERAK, SOL, ROCK, KAMAKALA, MERCABAH, BEBELOI, BELITA, IGNEM, ENIGMA, PASCHA, I AM A GOD, OBEY

44 = HADITH, FOOL, NONE, CIRCLE, RING, EIGHT, MICHAEL, JHVH, IAO-OAI, SACRED, TREE, SOMA, ESSE, YOGA, YACHID, HEIKLE, HRU, NIGRA, AGHORA, KABIRI, DALETH, LUNA, AHURA, ANGELIC, DIGIT, ****, PERI, HELIO, M'BUL, KAPILA, NETI, TAI CHI, FIFTH, CAUSE, REDEEM, EVIL, LIVE, VEIL, GREEN, LUCID HEBDOMAD, OLAHM, THE CABALA, LAUGH

45 - TANECH, AMUN, DEUS, LORD, SON, SAMAEL, AYING, SNAKE, NAHASH, ANANTA, FOHAT, MANU, THAT, IAHWAI, YAHO, SHU, YIN, ATOM, PRANA, SEX, LATRIA, LUKE, NAOS, KORE, CERES, LETHE, SATI, NANTA, BHAKTI, CAILLECH, ORO, YEAR, ELEGUA, BINDU, O I X, I BECOME, HE IS I

46 ABRAHADABRA, QABALLAH, THE DECADE, OVAL, THE EGG, HERS, ADYTA, AEIOU, INRI, DAEMON, ANTON, AMN HO, YES, OPEN, WAY, ABZU, CREATE, NOT, ATHEME, AEGIPAN, RUACH, ASHER, HAVAS, GARUDA, UDDU, GIBOR, DURGA, DEMON, TOMB, NUN, ZAIN, SHIN, RESH, LIMBO, VOID, AVOID, HYLE, WIND, CONCEAL, DEVAS, VEDAS, TARADA, MEENAM, DHARMA, LION, RIGEL, ALLY, DRUG, FEAST, SABBATH, MOJO

47 - ALTAR, FLESH, WINE, HEART, EARTH, SABBATI, SESHA, DIABOLIC, DEVIL, NACHASH, NARGAL, HOMO, GABRIEL, AIVAS, SIVA, DHYANA, ENLIL, IEVO, ARIES, MARS, NOMI, OMNI, FLOOD, RISE, TRIAD, MANES, EMOR, DIVIDE, O.T.O., HIMOG, ARCHER, LENT, TUI, ULEMA, GEHENNA, CARBON, ASHES, JOY

48 = ABBA AIMA OM, I AM LIFE, WHEEL, OB AND OD, MASS, FORM, HEPTAD, SALT, BREATH, AIWAS, ALCHIMIA, JAH-HEVA, HERU, MELEKH, CUPID, PALES, DOOR, VAGINA, GRAVE, RITE, SAMAHDI, HODH, QADESH, ROOD, GANESHA, KNAVE, DELUGE, NAKASH, CANNIBAL, TABOO, ORACLE, ALAKAZAM, ABRACHADABRA, OIHAHU

49 = TO ME, I AM SHE, HEAVEN, WOMB, NEBULA, KAKINI, NEHASH, TETH, MAGICIAN, ENOS, ADEPTI, N.R.R.C., SIX, ORDEAL, BECAUSE, VOICE, AEONS, NOW, HIGHER, KNEPH, KERSA, AXIS, MIMRA, ECCLESIA, MOGEN, ISLAM, LAHGASH, HADAD-NU'AD, ABRAKADABRA, SETI, TOME



50 = NOX, TORA, ROTA, TARO, ORAT, ATOR, LOVE, DIVIDED, SATAN, DAIMON, NAGUAL, SARPA, CHASMAL, JUDAS, FRIEND, SHAMAN, SCRIBE, BACCHUS, LAKINI, DEVACHAN, TEJAS, RUN, DENEBOLA, HEIRO, MEDIATE, NECRO, ORGAN, EYES, WATCH, BONES, NAILS, LACUNAE, JEWEL, CHANGES, YUBA, ARSEL, AANRU, ISVD, SUM, ATONE, AT ONE, THE END, NO GOD

51 = I AM ONE, SUN, GOLDEN,LIGHT, AOUR, AETHER, AUMGN, MAUT, MUT, MU'AT, TUM, AMMON, NEITH, HYDRA, ASSIAH, GEDULAH, GEMINI, SCIENCE, REDEEMED, UDJAT, SIGIL, THREE, BURN, COMET, SEMEN, JESU, CALLING, SUFI, MENES, SOHAM, GENADOL, IUNGE, HORN, MAHDAVI, OOMDI, PLACET, 2ND DEATH

52 - ISIS, PRIMA, MATER, BRIMO, SKY, ZODIAC, WILL, LIBER AL, AMANITA, YOGI, RUPA, MEZLA, ENNOIA, QOPH, CULT, BLACK MAGIC, BLACK COCK, NIGRI, HOOR, FATHER, PAST BELTANE, BLESS, LANOO, SLEEP, DOWN, BELOW, EMANATE, FLOW, TVAM, MADURA, LYRA, WHEAT, WISE, ZAKAR, NO MAN

53 = KEPHRA, MOON, MARY, MERU, LAYLAH, ROSE, EROS, IAHDONAI, NIGHT, NEBULAE, CONCEALED, UPHADI, PELICAN, SWAN, DRAGON, COAGULA, MAGNES, SHOO, TEACHER, CIPHER, EVOKE, THEBES, ALPHARD, HAWK HEAD, CHARON, ASHERAH, MEZCAL, SATEM, PRASAD, PINGALA, ARCHON, LAMMAS, MYRRH, I AM DEATH

54 = LUX, STAR, PENTAD, ROTAE, AIVAZ, SHIVA, CHOCKMAH, RAPHAEL, THE LAMB, PASCHAL, MENDES, MUSE, MEUS, SIXES, ORANGE, NOON, SADUCEE, BOREAS, BELUS, SECOND, THIRD, BITOM, SOPH BRASS, LILY, WHERE, WEIRD, MEDICINE, BROW, FOREHEAD, KISS, COMANAN, KORAN, VIGIL, HEATHEN, JOKER

55 = LVX, YECHIDAH, AIWAZ, SKHAU, IPSO, ANATHEMA, JEHOVA, GEBURAH, OMPHEDA, PEKHT, KHYANI, SEKHEM, OM-KALI, SADTI, SURA, ASURA, TWO, CUPS, INNER, ORDER, ORDAIN, INCANT, TRANCE, PALLAS, MOSHE, PATER, XAOS, ONDINE, DUANT, URSA, THE EAGLE, RAVEN, CROW, HERON, ALTAIR, MAHAMAYA, NULL, BLACK AEON

56 = WORD, HOLY, AMRITA, ELOHIM, MAGUS, AMENTI, BOULAK, STELE, SEPT, THE OBEAH, BLACK FLAME, RED FLAME, WINGED, FOUR, PRAY, LEVANAH, ALBA LUNA, NESCHAMAH, FEATHER, AN OMEN, VIDYA, COSMIC, KEYS, NINES, FIVES, DEGREES, VALUE ADD SUM, WANDS, DATON, DUTHA, BATAIVA, RADINI, JUNO, MUNDI, ADONIS, ACTION, RUTA, TAUR, YUM, DAVANISI, MAN CHILD, EMANATI, THE MAGI, TRICK, THE DUAD, THE DEEP, PURE, BLISS, CAPUT, HODOS, MANTEIA, ENOSH, DIVYA, PAI NIM, 3RD DEATH, I AM TEN, BLUE AM I, A BABE IN AN EGG

57 = THELEMA, ELEVEN, DIVINE, QUEEN, NETER, DRACONIA, LATONA, MEDUSA, ELECTRA, MIRIAM, ATHR, SAKINI, RUDRA, SEEDER, REVEAL, ALPHABET, SHTN, SARAPH, PHANES, SAMMAEL, ILUS, IACCHUS, URIM, GUATAMA, AVATAR, DREAMER, VEHICLE, TONAL, LINGHAM, POLAR, ROOM, TO DARE, THE DAY, FRIDAY, VOW, ALCORAN, HELION, CHAKSU, AETERNA, DEJA VU, NABATHEAN, SWARA, VRIL, MEBORACH, MASON, TERRA, TAPAMAL

58 = TIAMAT, TZADDI, RISHI, VALIS, KALAHAMSA, JESHU, JAH-HOVA, CHOSEN, SAINT, HANGED MAN, QADOSH, URANIA, BELOVED, JAI KALI MA, NO-ONE, HEDRON, PENIS, WHOLE, DELIGHT, SMOKE, SIGHT, COLOR, ENCHANT, WITCH, NEKHBET, RAMA RAMA, KADUSHU, DELLES, AANROO, KOHLEM, I AM NINE

59 = COPH NIA, ASWAT, N'ATON, AMOUN, ANCIENT, OLD ONE, ABRAXAS, ABRASAX, SABAOTH, TOTH, THOT, YHVH, LUCIS, RAYS, FOCUS, ORBIT, KRIYA, KTEIS, YONI, THE GATE, OASIS, MAAT MAGIC, MAGICKIAN, SPELL, KALAHANSA, PETER, PRINCE, EXARP, PASHT, TETRA, ARJUNA, TITAN, 2ND PATH, APRON, BURIN, MEDIUM, JOSS, ATMA BHU, YULE, ESUR, I AM BOAZ, I AM JACHIN, BLESSED, ALIEN GOD, ALIEN RACE, GOD IS DEAD

60 = NUIT, ZERO, I SHALL BE, SILENCE, NOOT, NOUN, BABULON, IAO ADONAI, AURIEL, URIEL, KHEPHRA, ANUBIS, GLAMOR, ALGMOR, ALCHEMY, LANGUAGE, MERTI, MEZLI, JANUS, SIREN, PREY, BLACK ART, WHITE, TRUE, BECOMING, ALL SELF, NAVIS, UNIT, SOLAR, CORONA, ELIPSE, LAUMEN, LAMBENT, SPARK, SEVEN, MUSIC, ABYDOS, RELICS, MOLOCH, ZAMIEL, SATANIC, TOKEN, TASTE, ZION, ADVENT, MATERIA, SAHASARA, SARIRA, TOHU, DUST, IA AM HE-SHE, ADAM AND EVE, BECOME GOD

61 = ARARITA, KETHER, ABYSS, ANEMOS, ASHTAR, HIDDEN GOD, WOMAN, LUNAR, AUM KALI, JEZIEL, METIS, A'ANO'NIN, EMEPHT, ANGEL HUA, ANUPADAKA, UNIFIED, TRINE, UNDINE, TIAOU, SATYA, GOLDEN AGE, PARADIGM, JURBO, MANTRA, FETISH, OTHER, THE FEW, MULLAH, MUKTA, HARI RAMA, MOKSHA, ACHATH ACHOD, NESHAMAH, IEHOVAH

62 = JEHOVAH, HELIOS, HERMES, SENEX, OANNES, SHUGAL, RA-SHU, SHAKTI, SEKHET, SOPHIA, MARDUK, OPHIS, MIZAR, CRUX, OPHALLE, BLACK MAGICK, BLACK LODGE, BATH KOL, ASHUR, ECLIPSE, HELIUM, WATER, REFLECT, RUBY, INCENSE, TOUCH, DAUT, MYTH, EASTER, ASTER, ASTREA, ASPIRE, CELEBRATE, OCCODON, IUGGES, AOZPI, KADESHIM, MAKTUB, MESSAGE, TENTH, MASK DANCE, I AM ALONE

63 = THE GOD HAD, SOUL, LOGOS, ESSENCE, WORK, THE SAW, NO-MIND, YESOD, SANDALS, WEST, DREAMING, ILDA BAOTH, BAAL-ZEBUB, DECEIVER, GURU, ZOHAR, NESCHAMAH, SONS, KNIGHT, KYRIE, STELLA, PLEIADES, CETUS, DECANTES, FIG TREE, BLACK GOAT, GLYPH, DEMETER, CTHONIA, SUCCUBA, CANDLEMAS, MAMMON, BISHOP, BINARY, TOTAL, COLLECT, QUINCE, HOUSE, BUBASTE, KHAMMAW, MAGNUM, HEROIN, 4TH DEATH

64 = BABYLON, ABOMINABLE, SECRET, MARRIAGE, REVEALED, SACRIFICE, FEASTS, VENOM, DRUGS, AVERSE, PANTACLE, PNUEMA, ALCHYMIA, HATHOR, LILITH, BENI ELOHIM, THE ANGEL, YAHWEH, SHADOW, GHOST, DAEMONS, CACODAEMON, KHUIT, BUILDER, ROOT, 3RD PATH, SARA KALI, HARI-HARI, OIHAHOO, GOG-MAGOG, MOHAMMED, AUM MAU, AMESHET, THORAH, GALAXY, RED AND BLACK, CROIX, I AM EIGHT

65 = AIVASS, SHAITAN, AZAZEL, SHANTI, ASHANTI, AZOTH, HERU RA, JHSVH, SIMON, PISCES, REDEEMER, SANGRAAL, TEMPLE, DUAL MAAT, SAMSARA, HAND OF GOD, ALL IN ALL, NAUGHT, DIFFERENCE, FOLLY, FAILURE, DESERT, PARADISE, ASTRAL, PORT, CENTRIC, LOCUS, RUBRIC, PROOF, PSVL, NOUS, VAYU, EREBUS, APPOLO, TZEDEK, RAZIEL, SHILOH, DZYAN, PURANA, HALLOW, HOSANNA, HANUMAN, BARATCHIEL, MERLIN, BAPTISE, CHILDREN, DEVOTE, ARETZ, ISWARA, WORM, ITSELF, NO SELF, THE DEAD MAN

66 = AIWASS, LASHTAL, THOTH, JUST, PERFECT, LAMB OF GOD, THE ALIEN, I AM HE AND HE I, ABRAMELIN, LAO TSE, MOSES, ORION, GODDESS, NETJER, KALI HAMSA, ISTER, SELKET, NEPHTHI, VIRGO, HESUR, HE IS SHE, ETHEEAL, I AM NOT, RITES, MONDAY, THE HOLE, CIRCLE DANCE, AMULET, SPERM, REASON, SCHOOL, DEFUNCT, KATONIC, LATENT, GEMATRIA, REGULI, HIS BRIDE, ADAM'S BRIDE, TIPHARA

67 = NUITH, HEAVENS, LOVER, SHEKINAH, SEKMET, LUCIFER, MESSIAH, OEAOHOO, HERMIT, PITRI, PRALAYA, FIRST ELEMENT, THELEMIC, NUMBER, CHARIOT, OBEAH-WANGA, OVUM, GOLDEN EGG, DRATER, OPHITE, SHRINE, EIDOLON, CRUCIS, ADAM KADMON, ZEUS, VULCAN, COPPER, ELECTRIC, GUARDIAN, RIVER, WORLD, ALTA MIRA, ULTRA, RAJA YOGA, ASTAPHA, CHIRSPA, HANUKKAH, ROUND, LIVING, HEROINE, CHAMELEON, DRAGON HEAD, HASHISH, HUNDRED, ORGASM, OPUS, ENGLISH, I KNOW

68 = ABBA AIMA ABRAHADABRA, MH HBV NH, SOLVE, THE DEY, UNION, TANTRA, LUST, NEPESH, OCCULTA, ENERGY, ETERNAL, BLUE FLAME, AURORA, CROWN, RED CIRCLE, BLACK HOLE, BEAUTY, MENTU, WEAPON, JEWELS, FLASHING, THE FINE, MADNESS, JOSHUA, GOSPEL, EGYPT, LEONIS, PANTERA, CACODAEMON, CENSOR, SOUND, SIDDHA KALI, TO OV, NASTIKA, BELOVED DEAD, STONE

69 = JEHESHUA, JESUS, ALPHA OMEGA, ONE KEY, ONE SELF, RPST, CROSS, CADUCEUS, TAROT, THE TAU, SEPHIRA, POINT, SANGREAL, HEXAGRAM, SOLIS, RA HOOR, ISHTAR, AMENNTI, MAAT MAGICK, TEMPLI, GENIUS, GINOSKA, ORUS, SPIRAL, SIGILS, PARABRAHM, NOBLE IDEAL, DISCIPLE, DIABOLOS, THE GOAT, HORNS, TWO FACED, WILD MAN, TEMPT, MEDITATE, MAGNUS, RULER, GANZIR, DANCE OF LIFE, EPHESIAN, THREES, THE BOOK, VERITA, ABI AGNUS, ERETZ, IUNGES, MATHULA, PARAMAPADHA, MUKTI, ECLIPTIC, LIGHTS, I AM HEAVEN

70 = HAD-NUIT, NU-HADIT, RA SHOO, KHNOOM, IAH JEHOVA, SHEMESH, NEPHESCH, NEITZACH, NEW AEON, PSYCHE, PIETY, MASTER, VIBRATE, INVOKE, INFINITE, LIFE FORCE, YAWAY, ATHANOR, CASTOR, SKULL, RED LION, ABIEGNUS, NORTH, GORDON, DRACONIAN, MULADHARA, JEZAVEL, MARRY, THE BLACK EGG, I AM NO GOD

71 = CHRIST, THE ADEPT, WATCHER, REBEL ANGEL, SAVANT, ANUMUS, ORIFLAME, DRAGONS, CHERUBIM, AETHYR, THE PATH, THE EAST, ZOSO, INTEGER, 1ST DEATH, 4TH PATH, SCARLET, ANTARES, VARUNA, MOSLEM, BEEZLEBUB, THE WANGA, GENESIS, MATTER, BLACK EARTH, REMEMBER, HRILIU

72 = HERU RA HA, THE BEAST, BAPHOMET, JHSHVH, POWER, GLORY, ORDEAL X, ARMAGEDDON, REPENT, ANGELUS, PHAETON, ECSTATICA, NIRVANA, DOXOS, PARACLETE, EGREGORE, TEMURA, VSNARDA, BABYLONIA, GOLD DEY, MAGIC RING, MAGIC CIRCLE, GROUP, HALLOWED, VIGILS, COLUMN, MESCALINE, 5TH PATH, OYHAHU, LY KING, PAY NIM, KRIST, PURIM, MOUTH, WOUND, THE PIT, BREAD OF LIFE, BEGINNING, IS NOT

73 = IPSOS, TAHUTI, MATSYA, KRISHNA, AZAZIEL, CHENRESI, TIPHARA, BAAL-ZEBUL, YESHU, PLEROMA, THALASSA, MOTHER, NATURE, SELKHET, THE MAKER, CREATOR, MORTAL, BAPTISM, REBIRTH, OPENING, SEX MAGIC, YANTRA, EPAPHOS, GLUTEN, GROUND, GROSS, SILENT, LOFTY, STANDARD, ROTATE, HARBINGER, 6TH PATH, ALLELUJAH

74 = THE FOOL, PARSIFAL, THE CIRCLE, THE RING, THE TREE, METENOIA, BHUTA-AGNI, INFERNO, SERVICE, LIBATION, WHITE HEAD, SHAMMASH, SEKHMET, LETTER, SWORD, WORDS, SPOKEN, EMPTY, THRONE, DANCE OF DEATH, ANOINTED, THE EIGHT, FOURS, DEMIURGE, TYRO, DAYANISI, CHANTONG, KAMA RUPA, DOZINAL, EASHOOR, THE HEIKLE, 7TH PATH, MAN IS GOD, AMEN AND AMEN

75 = AIN SOPH, NEGATIVE, BLACK SUN, BLACK LIGHT, DRACONIS, MENTHU, DARK LORD, THE SON, THE SNAKE, CROCODILE, SADA-SIVA, EVIL ONE, RITUAL, SYLPH, SQUARE, GEOMANCY, WIZARD, ENOCHION, THEIST, QESHETH, RAINBOW, PRIMATE, HOUNDS, EVOLVE, YAMATU, LEXICON, PLENUM, STHULA, JAGERNATH, PIONEER, MINERVA, MATRONA, CUCARPT, 8TH PATH

76 = HORUS, KHNOUM, AMOUN RA, DABEXNUF, SCARABEUS, YURBO, EMMANUEL, NAZARENE, RISHIS, FAVARSHI, DAUGHTER, VENUS, PORTAL, THE WAY, THE NOT, TOWER, ZENITH, NOUMEN, PARTICLE, ATTRACT, MIDNIGHT, HIGH MASS, CONCEALED GOD, WILL & DARE, INTENT, CHAROCITH, NIANTIEL, EVIL EYE, THE FATES, GNANA YOGA, OBSCURE, TONGUE, VERBUM, SEED OF LIFE, WARLOCK, TENTH HEAD, SENARY, 9TH PATH

77 = AIN ELOHIM, APOPHIS, THE DEVIL, YAHWAY, IAH JEHOVAH, LITHOS, HEPTDOMAD, TEHUTI, ASTARTE, CELESTIAL, DOG STAR, STAR GOD, GNOSIS, WISDOM, PRESENCE, SACRED LAW, VIOLET, PYLON, RED ROSE, RED MOON, RED DRAGON, BLACK ROSE, BLACK MOON, BLACK DRAGON, MYSTE, VAMPIRE, SENZAR, GOLGOTHA, GEHINNOM, SPRING, PERFUME, PRAYER, UNIFIED DECADE, AUTHOR, MEDIATOR, NEMESIS, NEITHIS, MANIPURA, HATHA YOGA, SARAPHIM, FIFTH DEATH, 10TH PATH, SUBTRACT, FIVE V'S AUGOEIEDES, WISE MAN, DYING GOD, GOAT-FISH, UNVIEL

78 = I AM THE LIFE, BE SILENT, HATHOOR, ETZ CHAYIN, RA AGIOSEL, MANHUSHI, SALAMANDER, FLAMMUS, TRIANGLE, SOUTH, ADYTUM, MANSION, ELEMENTAL, COLOUR, MNEMONIC, SUNDAY, BURNING, GNARLED OAK, CRUCIFY, FALLEN ANGEL, SCAPEGOAT, SAVIOR, SQUARED, LIKE A SON, HEPTAGON, SEVENS, INFINITE, COSMOS, TEMPLAR, TOPHET, PANTHERA, SATYR, ELEUSIAN, ELECTRICAL, FUSION, MOLECULE, FYLFOT, ATAVISM, MOTTO, JESUIT, 11TH PATH, MAYA KOSA, THE OD AND OB

79 = AHRIMANES, THMAEST, JEHOSUA, KALI YUGA, PLUTO, URAEUS, SERAPHS, FIRE SNAKE, MERLION, ORPHIC EGG, SILVER, CRESCENT, SCEPTER, TOWER, HEPTANGLE, PYRAMID, MALKUTH, MATRIX, CUTHALU, COMITY, JTHARA AGNI, PERIGNEM, THE AEONS, BROTHER, INITIATE, MEDICINE MAN, EPOPTEIA, CONJURE, SPECTER, NOUGHT, UNCREATE, ALASTER, TEMURAH, MUKTABIJA, MANTRIKA, BUDDHIST, ADEPTUS, KAPILASHKA, SURYA, COMPASS, MARIJUANA, PEYOTE, 10 HORNS, 1ST PATH, 12TH PATH, 22ND PATH

80 = NOTHING, NAMELESS, GNOSTIC, KNOWER, SATYAT, MAGICKAL CHILD, GENIO LOCI, KENTRON, KAKODAEMON, SCARABEUS, HORMAKU, YAHESHUA, IMMANUEL, VISNU, THO-OTH, URIENS, FIRE LION, JUSTICE, PILLARS, STELLAR, SYMBOL, LOGOGRAM, DOCTRINE, HEPTAGRAM, CIRCLE & LINE, THE ROTA, I AM I SHALL BE, BAPTIST, HALLELUJAH, THE NOX, VOODOO, ZAMRADIEL, HAGIOGRAPHA, OBLATION, CAULDRON, BY-COMING, GYNANDER, GLAMOUR, 11 HORNS, 13TH PATH

81 = THE SUN, SOLUS, ALBA SOLIS, DARK SUN, IAO ABRAXAS, BERASHITH, APOSTLE, PRIEST, TWELVE, SERAPHIM, DADOUCHOS, SCARAB BEETLE, ENGLISH CABALA, TALISMAN, MARK OF CAIN, SELF AWARE, NOWHERE, NOW HERE, VIA SANCTA, NAUTCHMI, TOTOCAN, YAB-YUM, PRANAYAMA, ALCHEMIST, FRATER R.C., FEROUER, 14TH PATH

82 = KHONSU, THERION, LAO TSU, SHEMMESH, BENI ELOHIM, DIVINE MAN, TRUTH, VISION, WINDOW, FOURTH, STIGMATA, SUCCESS, YIN-YAN, PURPLE, LOTUS, CANOPUS, MAGICK RING, MAGICK CIRCLE, SYNOCHE, BUILDERS, UNCREATED, PHENOMENA, NOT DOING, PALM TREE, 15TH PATH, AND THE OMEGA

83 = I AM THE ALPHA, OSIRIS, EMPEROR, THE FACE OF GOD, THE MOON, DARK MOON, ORIFLAMME, GOLDEN FLAME, MELCHISEDEK, ENOCHION, KONSOO, THE SACRED TAU, CYGNUS, WITTOBA, MYSTIC, HERCULES, MATTHEW, ABRAMERLIN, UDJAT EYE, EMANATION, DARKNESS, THUNDER, HAWKHEADED GOD, STAR GATE, STAR SEED, MORNING, SUMMER, WINTER, OPPOSED, I EVOLVE, OBEAH AND WANGA, SEX MAGICK, MAGICAL CIRCLE, ELEUSIS, TELETARCH, BOLESKINE, POLARIS, NOMMOS, DARMA YOGA, SACKCLOTH, TRIDENT, TEN AND ONE, ELEVENTH, TAICHITU, OD OB AOUR, CERBERUS, SHASTER, HOLY DAY, QULIELFI, 16TH PATH

84 = SOTHIS, THE STAR, DARK STAR, CONCEALED ONE, YEHESHUA, UNITY, UNVEILED, ORISON, RATZIEL, PESH HUN, LIONFISH, PHOENIX, SPHINX, MAGISTER, PASTOS, MATRA CHIT, ARIK ANPIN, AHURA MAZDA, KAKODAIMON, NETJERS, STYX, WARLORD, RED HORSE, BLACK HORSE, SISTER, SUTTEE, KLIPHOTH, LAUGHTER, NEUTRAL, ELECTRON, FISSION, OXYGEN, AUTUMN, THE KISS, 17TH PATH

85 = SPIRIT, LOVERS, CEREMONIAL, ECSTASY, PHYSICAL, SACRAMENT, STAR CHILD, TZABAOTH, ICHTHYS, PITRIS, ELEMENTS, CRUCIFIX, CAPSTONE, MIRROR, EYE OF FIRE, CLEAR LIGHT, ENLIGHTEN, THOUGHT, FUTURE, HORSEMAN, NUMBERS, WHITE EAGLE, THE ORDER, CARTOUCHE, NOSTER, AMFORTAS, ISWUR, I AM NAUGHT, TO WILL, 18TH PATH

86 ADONAI MELEKH, REMEMBRANCE, MAJESTY, SOLARIS, LODE STAR, PENTAGRAM, BLUE AND GOLD, THE KEYS, THE WORD, THE FOUR, WEAPONS, THE VALUE, BINARY CODE, THE FEATHER, THE STELE, DEVA RISHI, TANTRIKA, KUNDALINI, SEVENTH, COVENANT, PAROKETH, GARDEN OF EDEN, MARUTS, HEIRARCHY, DOSMOS, SVASTIKA, CTHULHU, CHNOUBIS, ISCARIOT, NIGHTSIDE, HALLOWEEN, CEMETARY, GHOST DANCE, CANNIBALISM, CORPUS, EPIPHANY, GOSPELS, ESOTERICA, MINERVAL, MIRZIND, 19TH PATH

87 = HORMAKHU, HOLY ONE, HOLY CHILD, SON OF GOD, YAHESHUAH, KURIOS, VISHNU, ALMIGHT, ENTITY, BES NA MAUT, SATURN, ANCESTOR, COILED SNAKE, KNOWLEDGE, HIGHER SELF, STRONG, VERITAS, KUTHALU, AMPRODIAS, TELETARCHAE, DISCIPLES, APHRODITE, SIPPOR, PARASAKTI, AVE SOPHIA, THE DREAMER, NOUMENAL, SEXTILE, DEATH IS LIFE, SECOND DEATH, THIRD DEATH, 20TH PATH

88 = EMPRESS, THELEMITE, THE BELOVED, WINGED FLAME, THYSELF, DIVINE CHILD, ADORATION, GODDESSES, WHITE MAGIC, BREAD AND WINE, MAZLOTH, MOGEN DAVID, GREAT BEAST, NAUGHT GOD, THE HANGED MAN, KATONOS, ESTE BEBELOI, SCORPIO, CAPRICORN, URANUS, NEPTUNE, VERTEX, NUCLEUS, NETI NETI, YIN YANG, HYDROGEN, TUESDAY

89 = HAD NU ABRAHADABRA, HOLY LAW, OUR LADY, ANIMA MUNDI, SIRIUS, HIDDEN LIGHT, AETHYRS, HOR AMMON, GOLDEN DAWN, PORTICO, REUNION, MARSAYAS, CHOSEN ONE, SELF REDEEMED, RESOLVE, DESTINY, PURIFY, SANCTIFY, HOLY ROOD, PLEASURE, BHAKTI YOGA, ROUND DANCE, ANTIPHON, KING OF EDOM, NEMYSS, ENGLISHT KABALA, 32ND PATH

90 = THE GOD HADIT, SERPENT, LIVING GOD, ANCIENT ONE, INFINITY, DHYANA COHAN, JNANA, SAKTI, DWAN YIN, MELCHIZEDEK, KHONSOO, PARSIVAL, HOLY GRAAL, SACRED DRUG, SUPREME, CEREMONY, CULTUS, ANDROGYNA, TEMPERANCE, JUDGEMENT, ASCENSION, RETURN, RUNNING, AROURES, PALE HORSE, THUMMIM, KHABS OASES, PRESENT, EGREGORES, STROPH, ZELATOR, EC ZOD HEHCHAL, BOOK OF CHANGE, THE AUD AND AUB

91 = PROPHET, MAN OF EARTH, PERDURABO, LION SNAKE, HRUMACHIS, DOUBLE WAND, OMPHALOS, SACRED HEART, TREE OF LIFE, INNER ROBE, THOU CHILD, ASURA MAYA, THE ANGEL HUA, GARGOPHIAS, PRONAOS, MATUTINA, LITURGIC, TALISMANIC, HYPNOS, CRYSTAL, LIGHTNING, BETELGEUSE, WHITE DISC, LINE DRAWN, GRAVEN IMAGE, FATHER SADIK, WEDNESDAY, TOANTOM, ITCHASAKTI, 24TH PATH

92 = HIDDEN STAR, NEW MOON, CONJUNCT, ECLIPSE, INVISIBLE, CURRENT, FOUNTAIN, AEONIC LIGHT, LAMBENT FLAME, THOUGHT, JUPITER, MAH HAH BOH NAY, TYPHON, PYTHON, SWORDS, FORTUNE, PROTON, POTENTIA, RECONCILER, GREAT LION, SNAKE OF LIFE, LETTERS, STORY, BEGINNING & END, TO KNOW, THE FOOLS, BLASPHEMY, CHRISTIAN, FLESH EATER, 25TH PATH

93 = ONE ONE ONE, ALBA SOLUS, IMMORTAL, LIGHT FORCE, INNER SELF, DIVINE MIND, HOLINESS, THE ESSENCE, THE SOUL, THE WORK, CONSECRATE, RITUALS, MAGICKAL CIRCLE, GEMMED SKY, I AM SILENT, MIMNESIS, DIVISION, CELEBRATION, ASTERION, SPRITI, NUTERU, CHAMELEONIS, PIONEERS, DRACONIAN RACE, DRACONIAN GOD, RED CROSS, BLACK CROSS, QUARTER, OCTENARY, FOREHEAD MARK, BULLSEYE, POTHNIR, THE BLACK BOOK, CHERNOBYL, THE FIG TREE, 26TH PATH, MENDES GOAT, THE DECEIVER, IS THE KING, EVIL ONES, SKELETON, BLOOD OF A CHILD, KANYA DURGA, CANIS MAJOR, HAIL LUCIFER, HAIL MESSIAH

94 = YEHOSHUA, SANDALPHON, HOLY ADONAI, CHAMELIONIS, KHABS OASIS, ANDROGYNE, THE ROOT, PRAKRITI, EXPERIENCE, OPEN DOOR, APOCRYPHA, TAURUS, POLLUX, OLYMPAS, THE TIBETAN, CROWLEY, JUSTIFIED, NEW ORDER, CONCENTRIC, NULL SPACE, TERNARY, GOOD FRIDAY, 27TH PATH

95 = HOLY BOOK, HIEROGRAPHA, BLACK AND RED INK, THREE KEYS, PYLONS, FINGER OF GOD, THE HAND OF GOD, OTZ CHIIM, VISHUDDHI, LAYA CENTER, JERUSALEM, EUCHARIST, THE REDEEMER, WARRIOR, MANVANTARA, CAUSELESS, STARRY, SPLENDOR, PERFUMES, PRINCESS, ORPHEUS, SECRET FEW, MYSTES, RECTORES, IPSO FACTO, AVERSION, 28TH PATH

96 = AGATHODAIMON, RUA COPH NIA, NETJER ANKH, SUN SNAKE, BORNLESS, HIDDEN DEITY, NIGRI LUNA, ONE IN EIGHT, TIPHARETH, MERCURY, THE JUST, THE PERFECT, THE LAMB OF GOD, DEVOTION, SORCERY, AWARENESS, PANTHEISM, HARLEQUIN, MAGIC WEAPONS, MANSIONS, FALLEN ANGELS, REGULUS, LIGHT YEAR, ECTOPLASM, 29TH PATH

97 = NUIT HADIT, DIVINE HE-SHE, SACRED CIPHER, THEURGY, ELYSIUM, THE HERMIT, THE MESSIAH, APPRENTICE, INITIATES, REFLECTION, QLIPHOTH, ELEVENTH HEAD, PASS NOT, I AM LIFE AND DEATH, DISSOLVE, GOOD AND EVIL, OX AND NONE, TELESMATIC, POLYGON, 30TH PATH

98 = TO ME - TO ME, MAYA SHAKTI, ASTORETH, ASTEROTH, METATRON, TZAPQIEL, DHYANI CHOHAN, PALLAS ATHENA, HOLY FORCE, HOLY GRAIL, TRU SELF, EQUINOX, HORIZON, RECREATION, THE BELOVED DEAD, EVOLVING, WHITE LODGE, WHITE MAGICK, KINGDOM COME, GOD THE SON, ONE HUNDRED, VORTEX, VIKKARTANA, SUKKOTH, ATONEMENT, AT ON-MENT, SEPULCHRE, CAST A SPELL, WITHDRAW, LINGA SARIRA, MOON SNAKE, PSYCHEDELIC, QUINARY

99 = THREE GRADES, GATE OF LIGHT, STAR SNAKE, BRASS SNAKE, LION OF FIRE, DESERT SAND, BE WITH US, THE BLESSED DEAD, COCYTUS, PROCYON, ELEUSINIAN, MOUNTAIN, GOLDEN BOWL, HERE AND THERE, VAMPYRIC, APOSTLES, NAUTCHMIS, SACRAMENTO, TERRA FIRMA, MORDIALHCTGA, SHAVUOT, MINISTER, HARPOKRAT, SHUT UP

100 = LOVE DIVIDED, BLACK AND WHITE, NIGHT OF PAN, SNAKE AND TAU, HERM-ANUBIS, NEPHTYS, KHABS HOUSE, STAR EGG, SYNOCHES, FULL MOON, FULLNESS, THE SKULL, BLOOD OF A BEAST, HIS NUMBER IS, THREE ONES, TRISHULA, TIPHERETH, HOLY TREE, NEOPHYTE, MARKED FOREHEAD, FRONTEM, PHLEGETHON, QUANTUM, GEOMETRY, NEUTRON, CAUDA DRACONIS, KATONSIS, KUTULU, MAGIC GROUP, FIRST DEATH

101 = NEHUSHTAN, AB NEPHTYS, RA HARAKTY, ABSU SHUGAL, ZIPPORAH, THE DRAGONS, THE CHERUBIM, PERFECTION, DIVINE FOOL, THE WATCHER, GUARDIAN ANGEL, THE CHRIST, THREE NAILS, HEART STAR, UNITARY, ROSE & ROOD, THE AETHYR, VIBRATION, I AM LIFE I AM DEATH, DYNASTY, PRACTICUS, PERIHELION, WORMHOLE, SCORPION, CORLEONIS, MYSTICS, WORSHIP, DARK MATTER, THE BLACK EARTH, NECROMANCY, SATURDAY, CHRISTMAS

111 = REVELATION, NUMBER OF A MAN, BEHOLD CHRIST, ANTICHRIST, KING OF KINGS, SEVEN SEALS, SEVEN CANDLES, THE BOOK OF GOD, A LITTLE BOOK, THE ENGLISH CABALA, I AM ONE AND NONE, WORSHIP HAD, HIS NUMBER IS 11, OMNISCIENT, FIRST CAUSE, EMOR DIAL HECTEGA, VENOM SABBATAI, THE SERAPHIM, SECRET AND FEW, THE TWELVE, THE APOSTLE, THE PRIEST, HERU RA UDDU, THE MARK OF CAIN, THE DARK SUN, THE SCARAB BEETLE, ZEITGEIST, SATYA YUGA, HOLY ORDER, COSMIC ORDER, WORLD RING, MILKY WAY, GLITTERING, WHITE LIGHT, PERSEPHONE, FORGOTTEN, REND THE VEIL, WILL & KNOW, INTENTION, THE EAGLE'S GIFT, ONE MAGICKAL CHILD,

222 = I AM NUIT AND MY WORD IS SIX AND FIFTY, THE EMPRESS & HEIROPHANT, I AM THE INTERIOR STARS, ATTRACTION AND AVERSION, THE NOX VALUE OF ENGLISH, REVELATION - THE ENGLISH CABALA, HAD - THE SERPENT AND THE EGG, THE LAW - LOVE UNDER WILL

333 - I AM INFINITE SPACE AND THE INFINITE STARS, THE PRIESTESS OF THE SILVER STAR, THE HERMIT THE LOVERS THE MAN OF EARTH, KETHER CHOCKMAH BINAH CHESED GEBURAH TIPHARETH, ATEH - MALKUTH - VE GEBURAH - VE GEDULAH - AUM HA - AMEN

444 = NINETY-THREE - THE DOUBLE WAND OF THE FORCE OF COPH NIA, HAD NU THELEMA THE BEAST THE SCARLET WOMAN & THE MAGICKAL CHILD, AHA! THE CHILDREN OF THE VOICE AND THE GODS OF THE MIGHTY ORACLE, IAO-OAI THE CREATOR PRESERVER & DESTROYER, NETZACH HOD YESOD MALKUTH AIN AIN SOPH AIN SOPH AUR

555 = TO ME! TO ME! - 418 - AUM HA.

666 = REVELATION - THE BOOK OF GOD - NUMBER OF A MAN - BEHOLD CHRIST - ANTICHRIST - KING OF KINGS

777 = AIN - AIN SOPH - AIN SOPH AUR- KETHER - CHOCKMAH - BINAH - CHESED - GEBURAH - TIPHARETH - NETZACH - HOD - YESOD - MALKUTH

105 = V.V.V.V.V., ALL OSIRIS, LUX & NOX, UNIVERSE, UNKNOWN, PRIMORDIAL, AXIS MUNDI, THE SQUARE, TEN HORNS, HARI KRISHNA, IPSISSIMA

107 = FIFTY-SIX, THE PILLARS, UNDERSTAND, INNER ORDER, SHIVAYA AUM, ADONAI HA ARETZ, SEVEN EYES, THE MAGICKAL CHILD

112 = AIN SOPH AUR, EIGHT & EIGHTY, CRUX ANSATA, PRIMA MATERIA, FOUR KEYS, THE MAGICK RING, GOAT OF MENDES, UNIVERSAL, ASPIRATION

113 = SACRED CROSS, THE SACRED TAU, UNCREATED ONE, SANCTUARY, THE UDJAT EYE, NIGRA SOLIS, WHITE MOON, WHITE SWAN, THE MYSTIC, SUM TOTAL, THREE EIGHTS, DIVYACHAKSU, THE NOMMOS

114 = I AM THAT I SHALL BE, STAR DUST, PSILOCYBIN, MUSHROOM, KRIYA SAKTI, SEPTENARY, TOTALITY, KING OF ISRAEL, FIVE FIVE FIVE, NINE NINE NINE, CONUNDRUM

115 = JEHOVAH ELOHIM, THE LOVERS, THE PYLONS, RUBY ROSE, RPSTOVAL, HIDDEN WISDOM, SECRET SUN, TWO = ZERO, SHUSHUMNA, SWADISTHANA, THE CROSS & THE EGG, SILVER CORD, COSMIC RAYS, ENCHANTRESS, MOTHER OF GOD, QUEEN OF SPACE, TOWER OF BABEL, SEVEN KINGS, FOURTH DEATH

116 = HERU PA KRAATH, KING OF ZION, HEPHAISTUS, ASTRAL LIGHT, THE GOD IS HADIT, THE HEAD OF THE DRAGON, STAR RUBY, CLAIRVOYANCE

117 = THE GREAT BEAST, TRUE THELEMA, SET-HORUS, PESH HUN NARADA, SELF INITIATE, ASCENSION DAY, PRESERVER

118 = MYSTERY, SUCIS AETERNA MATER, THE EMPRESS, YOD HEH VAU HEH, HOLY WATER, WORMWOOD, THEURGIST, RESURRECT, DIONYSUS

119 = CHORONZON, THUNDER MIND, ZAUIR ANPIN, ROSICRUCIAN, FOUR SONS, THE REUNION, OFFERTORY, THE PRIESTS, THE APOSTLES, NEGATIVE VEIL, URSA MAJOR, PLEROMA & VOID, THE GOLDEN DAWN, IT IS FINISHED

120 = FORCE OF COPH NIA, THE ANCIENT ONE, THE SERPENT, HOLY GHOST, THE LIVING GOD, CRUCIFIXION, THREE THREES, THREE LIGHTS, FOURTH KEY, MULTIPLY

121 = THE DOUBLE WAND, SOLVE-COAGULA, PRIESTESS, NOX AND LVX, CONTINUUM, FOUR-EIGHTEEN, BOOK OF THE LAW, SACRED QUEST, I AM THE CHRIST, MAN OF EARTH, NIGRI SOLIS, MIDNIGHT SON, BLACK BROTHERS, NIGHTSIDE QABALAH, PROSERPINA, HARPOKRATES, MAGICKAL GROUP, MYSTICISM

122 = LUX OCCULTA, THE HIDDEN STAR, THE WINGED GLOBE, SERPENT FLAME, CRIMSON DESERT, THE SECOND KEY, CIRCLE SQUARED, SOLAR ECLIPSE, ROSE & CROSS, SILVER MOON, SEVEN VEILS, DIVINE FOLLY, THEOSOPHY, TETRACTYS, HOLY WRIT, THE THIRD KEY, THREE SIXES, SEXTENARY, PHORONEUS, TRANSMUTE, THE CURRENT

123 = SELF MADE PERFECT, NUDA VERITAS, SPIRITUS, ANCIENT OF DAYS, SECRET CENTER, IA AM ALL AND NAUGHT, AEON CURRENT, LUNAR ECLIPSE, ASTROLOGY, SEVEN SONS, ORO IBAH AOZPI

124 = MYSTERIES, EVOLUTION, ENGLISH ALPHABET, THREE TWOS, TWO HORNS, KING OF ISRAEL

125 = RA HOOR KHUT, I AM THAT I SHALL BE, NIGRA SOLUS, DIVINE MADNESS, JUSTIFIED ONE, THIRTY-ONE, THE FINGER OF GOD, THREE FOURS, SEVEN-EIGHTEEN, GREAT PYRAMID, LINGAM & YONI

126 = FIFTY AND SIX, MEMORIAL RITE, SUN OF AMENTI, NEGATIVE LIGHT, THOTH-ANUBIS, ELEVEN HORNS, TRANSFIGURE, MAN BECOMES GOD

127 = LORD OF LORDS, BORNLESS ONE, THE AEONIC WORD, MIDNIGHT SUN, EYE OF HORUS, REMAIN SILENT, THERE IS NO GOD

128 = THE EQUINOX, THE HOLY FORCE, THE HOLY GRAIL, THE WHITE LODGE, NOX FLAMMUS, THE BOOK OF THE DEAD, MANSLAUGHTER, MAN'S LAUGHTER

128 = THE GODDESS NU, OUR LADY BABALON, THREE SEVENS, SEVEN SUNS, FLAMING SWORD, OROBOROUS, THE FORMLESS, HAD NU ABRAHADABRA AUM HA

130 = HOOR PAAR KRAAT, SHAITAN-AIVASS, ANKH AF NA KHONSU, MARK OF THE BEAST, SPOKEN WORD, MAGNUM OPUS, DESTROYER, PROMETHEUS, CYNOCEPHALUS, MNIZOURIN, ANTISTROPH, PERSEVERANDO

131 = THE TAU AND THE EGG, FOURSQUARE, THE DIVINE FOOL, HEART OF HEARTS, STARRY BLUE, GREAT SPIRIT, ABSTRUCTION, FOUR ONE EIGHT, HIEROGLYPHS, CAPUT DRACONIS, ADEPTUS MAJOR, SEVENTH SON, TEN PLUS ONE, IN ITS FAILURE

132 = SCARLET WOMAN, HER NUMBER IS 11, SEVEN STARS, THE COSMIC EGG, COILED SERPENT, SERPENT FORCE, NINETY-THREE, CRESCENT MOON, THE WHITE DOVE, NIGHTSIDE QABALLAH, BLASTED TOWER, THE SECRET KEY, EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT, THE WITNESS, TTOUMATHPH

133 = RA HOOR KHUIT, AEONIC CURRENT, THE ONE IN THREE, THE APOCALYPSE, ENLIGHTENMENT, SAGITTARIUS, VIRGO LUCIFERA, LUX FLAMMUS, INSPIRATION, SILVER STAR, ZERO AS TWO, THE GOLD CROSS, ORGASMIC BLISS, THE CHRISTOS, THE SORCEROR, THE ILLUSION, TAROT CARDS, FOUR GATES, THE DRAGON'S HEADS, IEHOVAH ANGELUS

134 = THE LAW OF LIBER AL, THE NOX STAR, THE HIEROPHANT, PISTIS SOPHIA, THE AEONIC WORK, THE POMEGRANATE, COSMOCRATORE, DAIVIPRAKRITI, MANTRIKA SKATI, ELEVENTH HORN

135 = LIBER AL VEL LEGIS, THE EMERALD TABLET, THE HOUSE OF GOD, THE FIRST KEY, HERE IS WISDOM, NUMEROLOGY, KNOW WILL & DARE, THE PRIMORDIAL, THE EXORCIST, GROUP WORK, TOWER OF BABALON

136 = THE KEY OF IT ALL, CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE, THE WORD DIVIDED, THE KEYSTONE, ENGLISH TAROT, LIGHTNING BOLT, PRIMORDIAL ONE, INTERCOURSE, MYSTIC ROSE, SERPENT EGG, THE TRIPLE FLAME, THE MAD PROPHET, HOLY DAEMON ANGEL, JUDAS ISCARIOT, KING OF NOTHING, SEVEN RISHIS, ISIS CONCEALED, ISIS UNVEILED

137 = TO MEGA THERION, THE THREE KEYS, FOOL - ONE ONE ONE, HOLY OF HOLIES, MORNING STAR, CORONA BOREALIS, ILLUMINATION, HERMETIC MARRIAGE, THE CHOSEN ONES, NEGATIVE VEILS, OMNIPRESENT, BLOOD OF THE MOON, KISS OF THE ANGEL, THE CHILD HORUS, KINGS OF EDOM, FOHAT CURRENT, THE TWO IN ONE, UNDERSTANDING, NEW SYMBOLS

138 = THE BEAST AND HIS BRIDE, THE POLARITY, ROSE AND CROSS, THE HOLY THREE, THE TRINITY, WORD OF THE LAW, THE BOOK OF LOVE, THE BOOK OF CHANGES, THE ANCIENT ONES, SHEMHAMPHORASH, SEVEN SEVENS, THE LUX STAR, THE BROW STAR, THE STAR OF DAVID, TRANSFIXION

139 = LOVE IS THE LAW, THE GREAT WORK, THE FOUNDATION, CAUSELESS CAUSE, QUINTESSENCE, THE LVX STAR, SUN OF AMENNTI, THE 31ST PATH

140 = PRINCE PRIEST, JESUS CHRIST, SHEMHAMPHORASCH, HOLY DAIMON ANGEL, THAUM-AESCH-NIA-ETH, AUREM CRUCIS, FIVE RAYED STAR, THE SACRED RITES, PHILOSOPHUS

143 = NUIT HADIT ABRAHADABRA, THE OBEAH AND WANGA, THIS LINE DRAWN, PATER NOSTER, ADEPTUS MINOR, IPSISSIMUS, NEUTRAL CENTER

144 = SECRET DOCTRINE, WHICH IS AND IS NOT, NOTHING IS AKEY, THAUMATURGY, THE BRASS SERPENT, GREAT WHITE LODGE

146 = THE ASTRAL LIGHT, THE STAR RUBY, THE HOLY BOOKS, ALL IS NOT AUGHT, SACKCLOTH AND ASHES

147 = SIX SIX SIX, VISION AND VOICE, INNER PLANE ADEPTI, NIGRA CHRISTOS, SEVEN TURNS, THIRTEEN KEYS, QUARTERNARY

149 = JESU BEN PANTERA, HODOS CHAMELONIS, THE SEVENTH SEAL, THOUGHT DIVINE, HIGH PRIESTESS

150 = I AM ANKH AF NA KHONSU, THE MIND OF AIWASS, THE WORD SECRET, THE WORD MADE FLESH, HOC EST CORPUS, ITS ALL OSIRIS

151 = THE BOOK OF THE LAW, LIFE THROUGH DEATH, THE BURNING GROUND, RESSURRECTION, GNOSTIC CHRIST, SIX RAYED STAR

153 = THREE THREE THREE, GENIO HUIS LOCI, MAGISTER TEMPLI

156 = THE GODDESS NUIT, MOTHER FATHER CHILD, THE SON THE SUN, THE MAN BECOMES A GOD, THE DAY BE WITH US, PASTE THE SHEETS

157 = HOLY GUARDIAN ANGEL, THE BORNLESS ONE, THE SUPREME BEING

159 = STELE OF REVEALING, LOVE UNDER WILL, THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE, THE FLAMING SWORD, THE SEVEN SUNS, THE EIGHT NUMBERS, TOWER OF BABYLON, DIVIDE AND DISSOLVE, MAGISTER DRACONIS

160 = THE MARK OF THE BEAST, THOU KNOWEST, THE SPOKEN WORD

161 = RULES OF ART, EPHESIAN LETTERS, PRIMORDIAL WORD, CRYSTAL SKULL, THE HIGHER THE FEWER

165 = TWO TWO TWO, COUNT THE NUMBER, HOLY THIRD ORDER, BONUS EVENTUS, THE PATH OF THE SNAKE, CORPUS CHRISTI, I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA

166 = HEKAS HEKAS ESTE BEBELOI, THE SERPENT EGG, THERE AM I AS A BABE IN AN EGG, THE CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE, THE ENGLISH TAROT, GNOSTIC WORSHIP

167 = KING AMONG THE KINGS, THE MORNING STAR, THE ONE GREAT UNIT, THE HOLY OF HOLIES, THE OMNIPRESENT, THOU CHILD HORUS

168 = THE WORD OF THE LAW, THE ORACLE OF THE GODS, THE ROSE AND CROSS, FIVE POINTED STAR, FIRE AIR WATER EARTH

169 = E PLURIBUS UNUN, THE KING OF THE JEWS, CHRIST IS THE BEAST

171 = THE FOUR ELEMENTS, WRITTN AND CONCEALED, THE RING PASSNOT, HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, RED LION AND WHITE EAGLE

172 = INTERIOR STARS, THE FLASHING SWORD

173 = I AM ONE ONE ONE AND NONE, THYSELF MADE PERFECT, CONCEALED MYSTERY, THE NEUTRAL CENTER, THE LOVELY STAR, ANDROGYNOUS ONE

174 = FOUR FOUR FOUR, THIS CIRCLE SQUARED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE

177 = THE LORD INITIATING, TIAMAT-CHORONZON, SON OF THE MORNING, TRANSFIGURATION, VISION AND THE VOICE, PSUEDO-CHRISTOS, HOUNDS OF CERBERUS, HORNED GOAT OF MENDES

179 = THE HIGH PRIESTESS, CONCEALED MYSTERIES, SPIRIT OF DRACONIS, THE BOOK OF LETTERS

180 = SEVEN SEVEN SEVEN, ZERO ZERO ZERO

183 = SPRITUS SANCTI, THE SMOOTH POINT

185 = 93 CURRENT

186 = THE HOLY BOOKS OF THELEMA

187 = IEHOVAH ANGELUS MEUS

188 = IPSISSIMA VERBUM, FOUR HUNDRED & EIGHTEEN, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST

191 = THE CHILD HOOR PAAR KRAAT, THE CRYSTAL SKULL

192 = SEVEN HUNDRED & EIGHTEEN

193 = THE CHILDREN OF THE VOICE

194 = THE POINT IN THE CIRCLE, HYPOSTATIC UNION, ADEPTUS EXEMPTUS, THE DANCE OF THE SEVEN VEILS

195 = THE DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL

199 = THE DOUBLE WAND OF COPH NIA, CITY OF THE PYRAMIDS

200 = THE COMITY OF STARS

201 = THERE IS NO GOD WHERE I AM

[Carn]

Originally posted by Aster

Yes, she spent much time with my presentation here and I am sure she would have spent even more time if I would have engaged in the testing procedures she offered. I have not been ready to do so and I believe I now understand better why.

You realized that you can do nothing that would pass any test?

Carn

[Aster]

You realized that you can do nothing that would pass any test?

Test and claim were not balanced at that time. Both Earthborn and I are patient people. JREF forum will still be here 10 years from now and we all know why. My realisation since has been more to the effect that a proper test be developed to meet the claim that any person susceptible to hypnosis and ideomotor effect is able to 'perform' a supernatural act.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[scribbles]

http://www.cyberphysicianrx.com/mask.jpg

[Tricky]

Originally posted by scribbles
Okay everybody, here goes... This may be sliding off the subject a LITTLE, but in a way I think it may be a scribble of WORDS & NUMBERS of a sort. Just thought I would post this for a little fun just to get the opinion of others here on this board on the Ideomotor Art and Communication. It is of the thelemic equation. These words come about by a simple equation when incremented. I am careful on what I believe in, but I think it just MAY BE A SUPERNATURAL COMMUNICATION! The equation is 1=A=0 and so on....


The Numbers & the Words by 1=A=0
these are words formed by a mere numerical equation...
{snip}
LOL. I don't think we have to wade through that mishmash of words (which could obviously be rearranged in many ways with any good anagram-finding program). All we have to do is look at the "equation" that leads to this gibberish

1=A=0
Do you truly consider that to be an "equation"? If so, how do you account for the fact that you have begun the whole process with the obviously incorrect identity that 1=0 (if you remove the middle term, which is a perfectly legitimate mathmatical operation)?

Yeah, that's supernatural all right.

[scribbles]

okay here goes everybody,

The Universe: The 0 = 2 Equation

It is exceedingly strange, because every time I think of the Equation, I am thrilled with a keen glow of satisfaction that this sempiternal Riddle of the Sphinx should have been answered at last.
So then let me now give myself the delight, and you the comfort, of stating the problem from its beginning, and proving the soundness of the solution--of showing that the contradiction of this Equation is unthinkable. Are you ready? Forward! Paddle!
A. We are aware.
B. We cannot doubt the existence (whether "real" or "illusory" makes no difference) of something, because doubt itself is a form of awareness.
C. We lump together all that of which we are aware under the convenient name of "Existence," or "The Universe." Cosmos is not so good for this purpose; that word implies "order," which in the present stage of our argument, is a mere assumption.
D. We also tend to think of the Universe as containing things of which we are not aware; but this is altogether unjustifiable, although it is difficult to think at all without making some such assumption. For instance, one may come upon a new branch of knowledge--say, histology or Hammurabi or the language of the Iroquois or the poems of the Hermaphrodite of Panormita. It seems to be they are all ready waiting for us; we simply cannot believe that we are making it all up as we go along. For all that, it is sheer sophistry; we may merely be unfolding the contents of our own minds. Then again, does a thing cease to exist if we forget it? The answer is that one cannot be sure.
Personally, I feel convinced of the existence of an Universe outside my own immediate awareness; but it is true, even so, that it does not exist for me unless and until it takes its place as part of my consciousness.
E. All this paragraph D is in the nature of a digression, for what you may think of it does not at all touch the argument of this letter. But it had to be put in, just to prevent your mind from raising irrelevant objections. Let me continue, then, from C.
F. Something is. This something appears incalculably vast and complex. How did it come to be?
This, briefly, is the "Riddle of the Universe," which has been always the first preoccupation of all serious philosophers since men began to think at all.
G. The orthodox idiot answer, usually wrapped up in obscure terms in the hope of concealing from the enquirer the fact that it is not an answer at all, but an evasion, is: God created it.
Then, obviously, who created God? Sometimes we have a Demiurge, a creative God behind whom is an eternal formless Greatness--anything to confuse the issue!
Sometimes the Universe is supported by an elephant; he, in turn, stands on a tortoise...by that time it is hoped that the enquirer is too tired and muddled to ask what holds up the tortoise.
Sometimes, a great Father and Mother crystallize out of some huge cloudy confusion of "Elements"--and so on. But nobody answers the question; at least, none of these God-inventing mules, with their incurably commonplace minds.
H. Serious philosophy has always begun by discarding all these puerilities. It has of necessity been divided into these schools: the Nihilist, the Monist, and the Dualist.
I. The last of these is, on the surface, the most plausible; for almost the first thing that we notice on inspecting the Universe is what the Hindu schools call "the Pairs of Opposites."
This, too, is very convenient, because it lends itself so readily to orthodox theology; so we have Ormuzd and Ahriman, the Devas and the Asuras, Osiris and Set, et cetera and da capo, personifications of "Good" and "Evil." The foes may be fairly matched; but more often the tale tells of a revolt in heaven. In this case, "Evil" is temporary; soon, especially with the financial help of the devout, the "devil" will be "cast into the Bottomless Pit" and "the Saints will reign with Christ in glory for ever and ever, Amen!" Often a "redeemer," a "dying God," is needed to secure victory to Omnipotence; and this is usually what little vulgar boys might call a 'touching story'!
J. The Monist (or Advaitist) school, is at once subtler and more refined; it seems to approach the ultimate reality (as opposed to the superficial examination of the Dualists) more closely.
It seems to me that this doctrine is based upon a sorites of doubtful validity. To tell you the hideously shameful truth, I hate this doctrine so rabidly that I can hardly trust myself to present it fairly! But I will try. Meanwhile, you can study it in the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad-Gita, in Ernst Haeckel's The Riddle of the Universe, and dozens of other classics. The dogma appears to excite its dupes to dithyrambs. I have to admit the "poetry" of the idea; but there is something in me which vehemently rejects it with excruciating and vindictive violence. Possibly, this is because part of our own system runs parallel with the first equations of theirs.
K. The Monists perceive quite clearly and correctly that is is absurd to answer the question "How came these Many things (of which we are aware) to be?" by saying that they came from Many; and "Many" in this connection includes Two. The Universe must therefore be a single phenomenon: make it eternal and all the rest of it--i.e. remove all limit of any kind--and the Universe explains itself. How then can Opposites exist, as we observe them to do? Is it not the very essence of our original sorites that the Many must be reducible to the One? They see how awkward this is; so the "devil" of the Dualist is emulsified and evaporated into "illusion"; what they call "Maya" or some equivalent term.
"Reality" for them consists solely of Brahman, the supreme Being "without quantity or quality." They are compelled to deny him all attributes, even that of Existence; for to do so would instantly limit them, and so hurl them headlong back into Dualism. All that of which we are aware must obviously possess limits, or it could have no intelligible meaning for us; if we want "pork," we must specify its qualities and quantities; at the very least, we must be able to distinguish it from "that-which-is-not-pork."
But--one moment, please!
L. There is in Advaitism a most fascinating danger; that is that, up to a certain point, "Religious Experience" tends to support this theory.
A word on this. Vulgar minds such as are happy with a personal God, Vishnu, Jesus, Melcarth, Mithras, or another, often excite themselves--call it "Energized Enthusiasm" if you want to be sarcastic!--to the point of experiencing actual Visions of the objects of their devotion. But these people have not so much as asked themselves the original question of "How come?" which is our present subject. Sweep them into the discard!
M. Beyond Vishnarupadarshana, the vision of the Form of Vishnu, beyond that yet loftier vision which corresponds in Hindu classification to our "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel," is that called Atmadarshana, the vision (or apprehension, a much better word) of the Universe as a single phenomenon, outside all limitations, whether of time, space, causality, or what not.
Very good, then! Here we are with direct realization of the Advaitist theory of the Universe. Everything fits perfectly. Also, when I say "realization," I want you to understand that I mean what I say in a sense so intense and so absolute that it is impossible to convey my meaning to anyone who has not undergone that experience. [
How do we judge the "reality" of an ordinary impression upon consciousness? Chiefly by its intensity, by its persistence, by the fact that nobody can argue us out of our belief in it. As people said of Berkeley's 'Idealism'--"his arguments are irrefutable but they fail to carry conviction." No sceptical, no idealist queries can persuade us that a kick in the pants is not 'real' in any reasonable sense of the word. Moreover memory reassures us. However vivid a dream may be at the time, however it may persist throughout the years (though it is rare for any dream, unless frequently repeated, or linked to waking impressions by some happy conjunction of circumstances, to remain long in the mind with any clear-cut vision) it is hardly ever mistaken for an event of actual life. Good: then, as waking life is to dream, so--yes, more so!--is Religious Experience as above described to that life common to all of us. It is not merely easy, it is natural, not merely natural, but inevitable, for anyone who has experienced "Samadhi" (this word conveniently groups the higher types of vision ["Vision" is a dreadfully bad word for it; "trance" is better, but idiots always mix it up with hypnotism.]) to regard normal life as "illusion" by comparison with this state in which all problems are resolved, all doubts driven out, all limitations abolished.
But even beyond Atmadarshana comes the experience called Shivadarshana [Possibly almost identical with the Buddhist Neroda-Samapatti.], in which this Atman (or Brahman), this limit-destroying Universe, is itself abolished and annihilated.
(And, with its occurrence, smash goes the whole of the Advaitist theory!)
It is a commonplace to say that no words can describe this final destruction. Such is the fact; and there is nothing one can do about it but put it down boldly as I have done above. It does not matter to our present purpose; all that we need to know is that the strongest prop of the Monist structure has broken off short.
Moreover, is it really adequate to postulate an origin of the Universe, as they inevitably do? Merely to deny that there ever was a beginning by saying that this "One" is eternal fails to satisfy me.
What is very much worse, I cannot see that to call Evil "illusion" helps us at all. When the Christian Scientist hears that his wife has been savagely mauled by her Peke, he has to smile, and say that "there is a claim of error." Not good enough.
N. It has taken a long while to clear the ground. That I did not expect; the above propositions are so familiar to me, they run so cleanly through my mind, that, until I cam to set them down in order, I had no idea what a long and difficult business it all was.
Still, it's a long lane, etc. We have seen that "Two" (or "Many") are unsatisfactory as origin, if only because they can always be reduced to "One"; and "One" itself is no better, because, among other things, it finds itself forced to deny the very premises on which it was founded.
Shall we be any better off if we assume that Ex nihilo nihil fit is a falsehood, that the origin of All Things is Nothing? Let us see!
O. Shall we first glance at the mathematical aspect of Nothing? (Including its identical equation in Logic.) This I worked out so long ago as 1902 e.g. in Berashith, which you will find reprinted in The Sword of Song, and in my Collected Works, Vol. I. [Actually, it's in Vol. II. --Brian Berge]
The argument may be summarized as follows.
When, in the ordinary way of business, we write 0, we should really write 0n. For 0 implies that the subject is not extended in any dimension under discussion. Thus a line may be two feet in length, but in breadth and depth the coefficent is Zero. We could describe it as 2f + 0b + 0d, or n2f + 0b + 0d.
What I proposed in considering "What do we mean by Nothing?" was to consider every possible quality of any object as a dimension.
For instance, one might describe this page as being nf + n'b + n"d + 0 redness + 0 amiability + 0 velocity + 0 potential and so on, until you had noted and measured all the qualities it possesses, and excluded all that it does not. For convenience, we may write this expression as Xf+b+d+r+a+v+p--using the initials of the qualities which we call dimensions.
Just one further explanation in pure mathematics. To interpret X1, X1+1 or X2, and so on, we assume the reference to be to spatial dimensions. Thus suppose X1 to be a line a foot long, X2 will be a plane a foot square, and X3 a cube measuring a foot in each dimension. But what about X4? There are no more spatial dimensions. Modern mathematics has (unfortunately, I think) agreed to consider this fourth dimension as time. Well, and X5? To interpret this expression, we may begin to consider other qualities, such as electric capacity, colour, moral attributes, and so on. But this remark, although necessary, leads us rather away from our main thesis instead of toward it.
P. What happens when we put a minus sign before the index (that small letter up on the right) instead of a plus? Quite simple. X2 = X1+1 = X1 + X1. [I believe this should be "X2 = X1+1 = X1 × X1." --Brian Berge] With a minus, we divide instead of multiplying. Thus, X3-2 = X3 ÷ X2 = X1, just as if you had merely subtracted the 2 from the 3 in the index.
Now, at last, we come to the point of real importance to our thesis: how shall we interpret X°? We may write it, obviously, as X1-1 or Xn-n. Good, divide. Then X1 ÷ X1 = 1. This is the same, clearly enough, whatever X may be.
Q. Ah, but what we started to do was discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index of 01, or 02, or 0n. And if our Nothing is to be absolute Nothing, then there is not only no figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 00.
What is the value of this expression? We proceed as before; divide.

0 = 0n-n = 0n ÷ 0n = 0n × 1 .
1 0n

Of course 0n ÷ 1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0n = oo.
That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the "infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 00 can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."
R. So much for one demonstration. Some people have found fault with the algebra; but the logical Equivalent is precisely parallel. Suppose I wish to describe my study in one respect: I can say "No dogs are in my study," or "Dogs are not in my study." I can make a little diagram: D is the world of dogs; S is my study. Here it is:


http://www.cyberphysicianrx.com/diagram1.gif


The squares are quite separate. The whole world outside the square D is the world of no dogs: outside the square S, the world of no-study. But suppose now that I want to make the Zero absolute, like our 00, I must say "No dogs are not in my study."
Or, "There is no absence-of-dog in my study." That is the same as saying: "Some dogs are in my study"; diagram again:


http://www.cyberphysicianrx.com/diagram2.gif


In Diagram 1, "the world where no dogs are" included the whole of my study; in Diagram 2 that absence-of-dog is no longer there; so one or more of them must have got in somehow.
That's that; I know it may be a little difficult at first; fortunately there is a different way--the Chinese way--of stating the theorem in very much simpler terms.
S. The Chinese, like ourselves, begin with the idea of "Absolute Nothing." They "make an effort, and call it the Tao"; but that is exactly what the Tao comes to mean, when we examine it. They see quite well, as we have done above, that merely to assert Nothing is not to explain the Universe; and they proceed to do so by means of a mathematical equation even simpler than ours, involving as it does no operations beyond simple addition and subtraction. They say "Nothing obviously means Nothing; it has no qualities or quantities." (The Advaitists said the same, and then stultified themselves completely by calling it One!) "But," continue the sagees of the Middle Kingdom, "it is always possible to reduce any expression to Nothing by taking any two equal and opposite terms." (Thus n + (-n) = 0.) "We ought therefore to be able to get any expression that we want from Nothing; we merely have to be careful that the terms shall be precisely opposite and equal." (0 = n + (-n).) This then they did, and began to diagrammatize the Universe as the I--a pair of opposites, the Yang or active Male, and the Yin or passive Female, principles. They represented the Yang by an unbroken ( ), the Yin by a broken ( ) line. (The first manifestation in Nature of these two is Thai Yang, the Sun, and Thai Yin, the Moon.) This being a little large and loose, they doubled these lines, and obtained the four Hsiang. They then took them three at a time, and got the eight Kwa. These represent the development from the original I to the Natural Order of the Elements.
I shall call the male principle M, the Female F.

M 1
M 2

M 3

M 4



Khien: "Heaven-Father"
Li: The Sun

KÃ¥n: Fire

Sun: Air



F 1
F 2

F 3

F 4






Khwån: "Earth-Mother"
Khan: The Moon

Tui: Water

KÃ¥n: Earth


Note how admirably they have preserved the idea of balance. M 1 and F 1 are perfection. M 2 and F 2 still keep balance in their lines. The four "elements" show imperfection; yet they are all balanced as against each other. Note, too, how apt are the ideograms. M 3 shows the flames flickering on the hearth; F 3, the wave on the solid bottom of the sea; M 4, the mutable air, with impenetrable space above; and finally F 4, the thin crust of the earth masking the interior energies of the planet. They go on to double these Kwa, thus reaching the sixty-four hexagrams of the Yi King, which is not only a Map, but a History of the Order of Nature.
It is pure enthusiastic delight in the Harmony and Beauty of the System that has led me thus far afield; my one essential purpose is to show how the Universe was derived by these Wise Men from Nothing.
When you have assimilated these two sets of Equations, when you have understood how 0 = 2 is the unique, the simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of the Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to learn about the Theory of Magick.
You should, however, remember most constantly that the equation of the Universe, however complex it may seem, inevitably reels out to Zero; for to accomplish this is the formula of your Work as a Mystic. To remind you, and to amplify certain points of the above, let me quote from Magick, pp. 152-3, footnote 2.

All elements must at one time have been separate--that would be the case with great heat. Now when atoms get to the sun, we get that immense extreme heat, and all the elements are themselves again. Imagine that each atom of each element possesses the memory of all his adventures in combination. By the way, that atom (fortified with that memory) would not be the same atom; yet it is, because it has gained nothing from anywhere except this memory. Therefore, by the lapse of time, and by virtue of memory, a thing could become something more than itself; thus a real development is possible. One can then see a reason for any element deciding to go through this series of incarnations, because so, and only so, can he go; and he suffers the lapse of memory which he has during these incarnations, because he knows he will come through unchanged.
Therefore you can have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible. This is also the only explanation of how a "Perfect Being" could create a world in which war, evil, etc., exist. God is only an appearance, because (like "good") it cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its combinations. This is something the same as mystic monotheism; but the objection to that theory is that God has to create things which are all parts of himself, so that their interplay is false. If we presuppose many elements, their interplay is natural.
It is no objection to this theory to ask who made the elements--the elements are at least there, and God, when you look for him, is not there. Theism is obscurum per obscurius. A male star is built up from the centre outwards; a female from the circumference inwards. This is what is meant when we say that woman has no soul. It explains fully the difference between the sexes.

Every "act of love under will" has the dual result (1) the creation of a child combining the qualities of its parents, (2) the withdrawal by ecstasy into Nothingness. Please consult what I have elsewhere written on "The Formula of Tetragrammaton"; the importance of this at the moment is to show how 0 and 2 appear constantly in Nature as the common Order of Events.

Love is the law, love under will.

[Powa]

Scribbles do you understand what this article is trying to say? Because for the life of me, I don't.

[Powa]

Also, you should probably read the forum rules (http://www.randi.org/forum/rules.html) on posting copyrighted material.

[scribbles]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Powa
Scribbles do you understand what this article is trying to say? Because for the life of me, I don't.

I think the argument is, that the world could have started as "nothing", and everything we see, has came to existance, by seperating it from its opposite. Similar in the way you do the mathematical operation 0=x+(-x).

Only problem is that this fails, when considering energy, the only negative energy i know is potential energy. AFAIK whatever negative potential energy is there, the positive energy from the mass of whatever creates the potential is far bigger. Also empty space has a non zero energy. Seems to me that the sum of energies of the universe would be positive, therefore starting from nothing seems to be a bit diffcult.

Also everything having is opposite would raise the very important question, where all the anti matter is, which has to be somewhere if everything has it opposite(for physics, that problem is smaller, you just need some reactions, where production of matter is preferred over anti-matter and you get a universe nearly made purely of matter).

The rest i cannot understand as well, especially the last paragraph, somehow argues from particles being the same, whatever their previous hisory to having "an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible", which is a quite big jump, even if correct.

Carn

[Powa]

Originally posted by Carn
I think the argument is, that the world could have started as "nothing", and everything we see, has came to existance, by seperating it from its opposite. Similar in the way you do the mathematical operation 0=x+(-x).
Ok, lets suppose the universe started from nothing ("positive" and "negative" energies in perfect equilibrium). What started the process of separating opposites? The universe was in perfect equilibrium, so it had to be something from outside of universe. This to me automaticly suggests a supernatural entity or a source of energy from a paralel universe.

Also empty space has a non zero energy. Seems to me that the sum of energies of the universe would be positive, therefore starting from nothing seems to be a bit diffcult.
Is this a priori true? I thought at least in theory completely empty space was possible? I have no idea.

Also everything having is opposite would raise the very important question, where all the anti matter is, which has to be somewhere if everything has it opposite(for physics, that problem is smaller, you just need some reactions, where production of matter is preferred over anti-matter and you get a universe nearly made purely of matter).
I have thought about this before. I always thought that it is just a matter of time when all the negative matter gets annihilated by an equal amount of positive energy and whatever energy there was more of would remain.

The rest i cannot understand as well, especially the last paragraph, somehow argues from particles being the same, whatever their previous hisory to having "an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible", which is a quite big jump, even if correct.
The last paragraph is a bit too New-age sounding for me.

BTW, I hope I'm making sense here. I just got home from work where we cellebrated someone's birthday and I had a few drinks too many.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Powa
Ok, lets suppose the universe started from nothing ("positive" and "negative" energies in perfect equilibrium). What started the process of separating opposites? The universe was in perfect equilibrium, so it had to be something from outside of universe. This to me automaticly suggests a supernatural entity or a source of energy from a paralel universe.


The possibility of seperation could be a normal feature of everything, though that leaves the question why this "rule" exists.



Is this a priori true? I thought at least in theory completely empty space was possible? I have no idea.

Ok, empty space is a definition problem, but if you take what is outside any atmosphere and far away from any star, gas cloud and so on, you get the best "empty" space , this universe has to offer.
And in this "empty" space there is still a lot of pair production going on due to uncertanity principle, even if "virtual". AFAIK there is some non-virtual energy attached to it, that cannot be zero, just in the way in quantum mechanics a oszillator(electron in atom or pendulum) cannot have a energy of zero, but has at least energy of 0.5 * h~(heisenberg constant) * frequency.
Though i do not know more about this vacuum energy and i think it is still hotly debated.



I have thought about this before. I always thought that it is just a matter of time when all the negative matter gets annihilated by an equal amount of positive energy and whatever energy there was more of would remain.


Unless they are completely seperated, yes.
But when they annihilate you get their energy in form of photons or maybe other particles. These stuff has then enough energy to do pair production so you get again equal amount of matter and antimatter and start from the same again.
AFAIK current idea is that big bang was just that, a lot of energy set free, you get a lot of matter and antimatter via pair production and ask yourselve today, where is the antimatter gone.
The suggested explanation is that for some unknown reason there where reactions in the very early universe, that produced more matter than antimatter. Even if just 0.1% of the reactions, thats more than enough to turn universe into pure matter very quickly. That is so because a lot of reactions were happening early, as it was a very "crowded place".



The last paragraph is a bit too New-age sounding for me.

BTW, I hope I'm making sense here. I just got home from work where we cellebrated someone's birthday and I had a few drinks too many.

Your questions do make sense, the article i tried to understand and translate does not make much sense, so do not expect make to explain the article in a way, that you do not have questions(especially "how can someone write this and still live a normal live?") left to ask.

Carn

[Powa]

Carn, thanks for clarifying some things to me. Physics is a fascinating thing (but I absolutely hated it in school).

[scribbles]

hmmmm.... i have been thinking about this for awhile and will continue to do so. as i am thinking, anyone ever heard of a psi wheel? they are easy to make. try googling it and check it out!!! talk to ya soon! ~scribbles

[GzuzKryzt]

hmmmm.... i have been thinking about this for awhile and will continue to do so. as i am thinking, anyone ever heard of a psi wheel? they are easy to make. try googling it and check it out!!! talk to ya soon! ~scribbles

SUPADUPABUMP!



But seriously. Scribbles, do you intend to make a claim for the MDC?

[scribbles]

why of course i do!!!

[Czarcasm]

why of course i do!!!
And what exactly will you claim as your ability?

[scribbles]

so what i was saying.....

[scribbles]

ofcourse... everyone here KNOWS the supernatural exists. this site demonstrates that.


sorry for the double post... whew i need an avatar

[chillzero]

scribbles, you may not be aware of it, but posts in this forum section should relate specifically to a claim, or they will be moved/removed by the mod team.

I'd suggest your next post identifies exactly what your claim will be.

[Aster]

Well.. I'm back. Couldn't login under my old handle 'Aster' because I lost track of passwords and what more have we. So, Aster 1111 it is now. Back to the diaperroom I guess. Pretty cool handle actually, when you figure that 1111 is the missing link in most peoples thinking if the idea is to get a bit closer to understanding the supernatural. I hope my friends Earthborn and Scribble are still here, but by the looks of it they probably are. Also amazed to see that this thread has been viewed over 10.000 times if I'm not mistaken. Viewing and running off into the woods is the most common response I guess. Let's see how we can liven this thread up a bit.:).

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Let's see how we can liven this thread up a bit.:).

Do you have a specific claim for the MDC?

[CynicalSkeptic]

I'm terribly disappointed that scribbles' numerology chart doesn't go up to 1111

[Dumb All Over]

Well.. I'm back. Couldn't login under my old handle 'Aster' because I lost track of passwords and what more have we. So, Aster 1111 it is now.
Oh dear. Let's hope you are not in violation of Forum Rule 7.

[Aster]

You're quite correct. Lisa just informed me. I will be able to change back to the old handle soon.

[Aster]

Do you have a specific claim for the MDC?
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Is there anywhere I can learn how JREF defines 'paranormal', 'supernatural' and 'occult' ?
Is a double blind test always considered a 'proper' observing condition and therefore a 'must' ? Was the 'ideomotor effect' ever defined by JREF and if so, how is it defined ?

[Aster]

You're quite correct. Lisa just informed me. I will be able to change back to the old handle soon.
I created an ideomotor drawing back in 1997 that, when you slide a mirror placed vertically on top of it accross the horizontal grid, sliding it from the far left side to the far right side of the drawing, a remarkable animation comes into existance, showing images that go from stemmcell to impregnated cell to a female womb, opening and a child's head coming out of the womb. It's been a long time back, but I believe that I may have mentioned this here before. But would that count for anything ? Mind you, ideomotor drawings can not be repeated..

[jsfisher]

Being able to draw things would not qualify. Even drawing weird things would not qualify. There is nothing paranormal nor supernatural about artistic talent.

Is there some specific claim you can make for a phenomenon that would defy science and can be tested in a controlled environment in which all reasonable alternate explanations can be eliminated?

[Pixel42]

Is there anywhere I can learn how JREF defines 'paranormal', 'supernatural' and 'occult' ?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

2.3 Does my claim count as paranormal?

Possibly. Read through the JREF forum for a list of previous applicants if you’d like to see whether or not your claim has been tested before. The list can be found at: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Past claims have included: psychic or mediumistic powers, ESP, dowsing, magnetic humans, astrology, faith healing, etc.

If you are submitting a claim that works off a previous assumption, you have to present evidence proving the assumption correct first. For example, a claim of exorcism must have prior proof of the existence of demons, unless the existence of demons would be self-evident during the exorcism. If someone’s head spins ‘round the wrong direction during an exorcism, it is safe to say that demons (or some other entities) are responsible. Projectile vomiting, however, is nasty and probably explainable.

Some claims are, unfortunately, untestable. For example, claiming that you are able to make someone feel happy by talking to them is untestable, because it is impossible to objectively gauge someone’s level of happiness, especially if they have been told that after talking to you they should feel happy.

If your claim is untestable, there is nothing that can be done to alter that status unless you find a new claim or negotiate a protocol in which the results are self-evident and objectively testable.

Is a double blind test always considered a 'proper' observing condition and therefore a 'must' ?

From the same link:

2.1 Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon,” what does that mean?

Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault.

JREF will insist on a protocol which eliminates any explanation for success other than the paranormal ability being claimed. Where alternative explanations can be easily eliminated by making the test double blind, that's obviously the way to go. There is no good reason for an applicant to refuse to agree to such blinding, other than a suspicion that such alternatives are indeed the real explanation of their supposed ability.

Was the 'ideomotor effect' ever defined by JREF and if so, how is it defined
Everything I've seen said by JREF representatives on the subject suggests they are using the standard definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect

[Earthborn]

I hope my friends Earthborn and Scribble are still here, but by the looks of it they probably are.I'm still here.

Is there anywhere I can learn how JREF defines 'paranormal', 'supernatural' and 'occult' ?JREF pretty much defines it as "anything we'll pay a million dollars for if you can do it without cheating". :)

Is a double blind test always considered a 'proper' observing condition and therefore a 'must' ?No, it depends on the claim. Some things are easier to test than others. To Uri Geller you can just say: "Here's an unprepared spoon. Bend it without applying force." The only control necessary is some experienced magicians watching carefully that he doesn't apply force to the spoon while trying to misdirect the observers. It is a pretty easy thing to test, no blinding necessary.

Other things may be much more difficult to test. That is especially true for things that are not magic tricks, but things that the person involved him/herself may believe is real, such as dowsing. Any test of a phenomenon that involves acquiring knowledge from a paranormal source will require double blinding, to make sure the person tested doesn't get that knowledge from ordinary sources.

I created an ideomotor drawing back in 1997 that, when you slide a mirror placed vertically on top of it accross the horizontal grid, sliding it from the far left side to the far right side of the drawing, a remarkable animation comes into existance, showing images that go from stemmcell to impregnated cell to a female womb, opening and a child's head coming out of the womb.Sounds interesting.

But would that count for anything ?Perhaps it counts for artistic value, or failing that as an interesting gimmick. But not as a paranormal phenomenon. Creating curious images with mirrors is not something unexplainable by science.

Mind you, ideomotor drawings can not be repeated..Unfortunately the challenge doesn't account for phenomena that may be paranormal but happen haphazardly and which therefore may be very difficult to test. Then again, it exists primarily to challenge those people who claim to have reliable paranormal abilities, not to crush the hopes and dreams of anyone who may have had an unpredictable spiritual experience.

[GzuzKryzt]

I created an ideomotor drawing back in 1997 that, when you slide a mirror placed vertically on top of it accross the horizontal grid, sliding it from the far left side to the far right side of the drawing, a remarkable animation comes into existance, showing images that go from stemmcell to impregnated cell to a female womb, opening and a child's head coming out of the womb. It's been a long time back, but I believe that I may have mentioned this here before. But would that count for anything ? Mind you, ideomotor drawings can not be repeated..

The term "ideomotor drawing" does not make sense to me. It seems you are using a different interpretation for the word ideomotor. Perhaps we could agree to use the standard definitons for the time being.

Also, the results of your above claim - which could be called "Automatic Drawing", because they seem similar to a claim made by Lance Katcher - seem highly subjected to interpretation or judgment.

MDC test results must be self-evident. No judging, no interpretation. Like a coin flip: It is either heads, tails, side or the coin disintegrating into a florblgnap. No judging there.

If you simply claim you can draw "stuff" for whatever reason, your claim will not qualify as paranormal and your application would be rejected as per the rules.

Which brings us to another point: Do you have a media profile and academic support for your claim?

[Earthborn]

It seems you are using a different interpretation for the word ideomotor.Aster has been doing that from the start. By know, we know what he means with it.

Also, the results of your above claim - which could be called "Automatic Drawing"That's exactly what it is.

Which brings us to another point: Do you have a media profile and academic support for your claim?Aster has had expositions of his work, and his work has been studied by a Russian professor. So that's not the problem.

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Aster has had expositions of his work, and his work has been studied by a Russian professor. So that's not the problem.

You probably mean well, but I would like to hear Aster's response.

[Aster]

[QUOTE=jsfisher;4984058]Being able to draw things would not qualify. Even drawing weird things would not qualify. There is nothing paranormal nor supernatural about artistic talent.

Well, that depends how you look at it. Look at it this way. Drawing automatically differs from drawing volitive because of the aspect of volition.

Modern science: "Whenever a movement instantly follows upon the idea of it, we have ideomotor action."

I have come to understand that the ideomotor effect is generally accepted as a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. Allthough this debunks any paranormal claim pertaining to the drawings themselves, I remain convinced that the paradigm of the ideomotor act could very well be the key that unlocks certain mental abilities temporarily acceptable as paranormal. Any scientific mind may be motivated to see in it an opportunity that aids the invention and explain the possible existance of parralel realities.

In this respect I appreciate to refer to Leonardo da Vinci and Moses Maimonides who write respectively:

"Among other things, I shall not scruple to discover a new method of assisting the invention; which though trifling in appearance, may yet be of considerable service in opening the mind and putting it upon the scent of new thoughts, and it is this: if you look at some old wall covered with dirt, or the odd appearance of some streaked stones, you may discover several things like landskips (sic), battles, clouds, uncommon attitude, draperies, etc. Out of this confused mass of objects the mind will be furnished with abundance of designs and subjects, perfectly new."

"The motions of living beings, even those that are inarticulate, are said explicitly by Scripture to be due to angels."

Maimonides statement made me view automatic drawing (my own abilities and drawings in specific) as angel drawing/drawings, putting the 'idea' and the concept of 'angels' in relation to each other.

Going back to the ability to draw things not qualifying and artistic talent not being supernatural: but what IF it would be possible to construct images by means of allowing the idea itself to construct them, using the human body as a plotter like tool at first, consequently guiding conscious awareness evolving in the direction inventions like mental projection ? I opt that it might be regarded supernatural if anyone could mentally project subconscious idea, dream, thought or emotion to a television screen, regardless of the fact wether their origin be of in- or external intelligence ? I have stopped automatic drawing for years now as I feel my intelligence is being compromised having to use pen and paper and working on in a 2 dimensional way. Next step towards any progression would be to hook me up to a supercomputer and have me do my thing in a hollow sphere.

[chillzero]

There are a lot of 'if's in that comment.

[Aster]

You probably mean well, but I would like to hear Aster's response.

I am autodidact; if I am indeed an artist and my work is viewed as a form of art, then it would be outsider art and I'd be a raw artist. I have done some exhibitions in Amsterdam, London, Minsk, St. Peterburgh and Shanghai. My work is in London now. I am not allowed to post a direct link to my website Angel Drawing here, but there's a transcript of a round table conference by Russian scientists there. I'm sure it's okay to mention the URL as my double handle problem has not been solved yet : angel-drawing.com

[GzuzKryzt]

I am autodidact; if I am indeed an artist and my work is viewed as a form of art, then it would be outsider art and I'd be a raw artist. I have done some exhibitions in Amsterdam, London, Minsk, St. Peterburgh and Shanghai. My work is in London now.

How does this relate to the MDC?

Do you have a specific claim for the MDC?

[jsfisher]

Going back to the ability to draw things not qualifying and artistic talent not being supernatural: but what IF it would be possible to construct images by means of allowing the idea itself to construct them, using the human body as a plotter like tool at first, consequently guiding conscious awareness evolving in the direction inventions like mental projection ? I opt that it might be regarded supernatural if anyone could mentally project subconscious idea, dream, thought or emotion to a television screen, regardless of the fact wether their origin be of in- or external intelligence ? I have stopped automatic drawing for years now as I feel my intelligence is being compromised having to use pen and paper and working on in a 2 dimensional way. Next step towards any progression would be to hook me up to a supercomputer and have me do my thing in a hollow sphere.


So, are you now claiming you can create an image on a television screen by the power of your subconscious mind?

If this is just empty speculation, still, then this thread continues to lack relevance to the MDC forum.

[Aster]

So, are you now claiming you can create an image on a television screen by the power of your subconscious mind?

If this is just empty speculation, still, then this thread continues to lack relevance to the MDC forum.
My claim is that my automatic drawings are consequences of a paranormal, supernatural and occult talent. But to prove that they are is quite another thing. The difficulty is comparable to this: To prove that you can dream is quite possible. But to prove that you can lift your body up and fly freely in the sky, be stabbed or shot and get killed, yet feel no pain and miraculously stay alive, play an awesome piano concert where you realise that this is a miracle because you know you couldn't do that before, be awakened in past life trauma, touch the stars as they are falling from the sky and experience them changing to green lightfish, communicate with extraterrestrials and meet Jezus in your dreams is still quite impossible. Having said that, please do not reply to the fact that dreaming isn't paranormal; I know it isn't. Also, please don't write that it would indeed be paranormal if one could play a pianoconcert after such a dream. All I am saying is that a mix of qualities (transcendence, ideomotor effect and automatic automatism) may very well be the key to the formula that - in the future - connects 'spiritual communication' to the science of math. This at least is how I was taught how to define my drawings during one of my first initiations into what I understand to be lemniscate awareness.

[Aster]

The term "ideomotor drawing" does not make sense to me. It seems you are using a different interpretation for the word ideomotor. Perhaps we could agree to use the standard definitons for the time being.

Also, the results of your above claim - which could be called "Automatic Drawing", because they seem similar to a claim made by Lance Katcher - seem highly subjected to interpretation or judgment.

MDC test results must be self-evident. No judging, no interpretation. Like a coin flip: It is either heads, tails, side or the coin disintegrating into a florblgnap. No judging there.

If you simply claim you can draw "stuff" for whatever reason, your claim will not qualify as paranormal and your application would be rejected as per the rules.

Which brings us to another point: Do you have a media profile and academic support for your claim?
I am interested to learn from you why using the term ideomotor is inappropriate. Please explain this to me. My drawings are automatic drawings but I see that as an aspect of the ideomotor act or vice versa. Ideomotor is the only scientific explanation associated to this type of communication and art. Moreover, automatic drawing is a term used in surrealist- as well as in spiritist practices where we all know the difference between the two.

[GzuzKryzt]

I am interested to learn from you why using the term ideomotor is inappropriate. Please explain this to me. My drawings are automatic drawings but I see that as an aspect of the ideomotor act or vice versa. Ideomotor is the only scientific explanation associated to this type of communication and art. Moreover, automatic drawing is a term used in surrealist- as well as in spiritist practices where we all know the difference between the two.

Since you invented the term, you need to explain why it seems appropriate. Which you kinda did. I do not think your explanation is satisfactory. Be that as it may.

The art of creating definitions obviously has no bearing whatsoever on your ability. If you want to call your ability ideomotor art, so be it.



Do you have any idea how you will demonstrate your ability "...automatic drawings are consequences of a paranormal, supernatural and occult talent..." in a way that precludes judgment, in a self-evident, non-interpretational way?

[jsfisher]

My claim is that my automatic drawings are consequences of a paranormal, supernatural and occult talent.

You are saying you have a drawing ability, but attributing it to extra-normal phenomena. The connection between your ability and the supernatural my be obvious to you, but unless you can come up with a way to rule out the mundane explanations (e.g. your drawing ability is due to artistic talent), you have no testable claim.

[petre]

You are saying you have a drawing ability, but attributing it to extra-normal phenomena. The connection between your ability and the supernatural my be obvious to you, but unless you can come up with a way to rule out the mundane explanations (e.g. your drawing ability is due to artistic talent), you have no testable claim.

Just to further clarify, there are known non-paranormal means of drawing. Some people have such ability and are able to produce remarkable results, but these are not considered paranormal.

If there is no way to distinguish your paranormal ability from a non-paranormal ability to draw (to an outside observer), then there is no test that can establish the paranormality of your ability and it would not be eligable for the challenge.

[ben m]

Just to further clarify, there are known non-paranormal means of drawing. Some people have such ability and are able to produce remarkable results, but these are not considered paranormal.

If there is no way to distinguish your paranormal ability from a non-paranormal ability to draw (to an outside observer), then there is no test that can establish the paranormality of your ability and it would not be eligable for the challenge.

For an example of a "way to distinguish": suppose you could somewhat control the content of your angel-assisted drawings. Suppose that you could ask the angel to go somewhere, view something, and then help you draw that thing. For example, could you ask the angel: "go to the next room over, where someone has chosen a playing card. I want us to draw an accurate picture of that card." This sounds like the sort of thing an angel can do---I don't know if your particular angel can. But it's certainly something a regular artist cannot do.

If your drawings could, indeed, report what cards had been picked from a deck in another room---that would be a verifiable difference between your drawing-ability and that of a regular artist.

[Aster]

For an example of a "way to distinguish": suppose you could somewhat control the content of your angel-assisted drawings. Suppose that you could ask the angel to go somewhere, view something, and then help you draw that thing. For example, could you ask the angel: "go to the next room over, where someone has chosen a playing card. I want us to draw an accurate picture of that card." This sounds like the sort of thing an angel can do---I don't know if your particular angel can. But it's certainly something a regular artist cannot do.

If your drawings could, indeed, report what cards had been picked from a deck in another room---that would be a verifiable difference between your drawing-ability and that of a regular artist.

I appreciate your comment and remember Earthborn suggesting to try and do something along this way a few years back. Not saying you are deliberately disrespectful but try to understand my use of the word angel in relation to automatic drawing. There's no reason for being sarcastic as I'm not working with 'my angel'. Moses Maimonides, one of the most talented Torah scholars in history, a rabbi, physician and philosopher born in 1135AD, wrote "The motions of living beings, even those that are inarticulate, are said explicitly by Scripture to be due to angels." Studying Maimonides definitions teaches us a more profound understanding of angels. He describes them as 'active intellect'.

[Aster]

Since you invented the term, you need to explain why it seems appropriate. Which you kinda did. I do not think your explanation is satisfactory. Be that as it may.

The art of creating definitions obviously has no bearing whatsoever on your ability. If you want to call your ability ideomotor art, so be it.



Do you have any idea how you will demonstrate your ability "...automatic drawings are consequences of a paranormal, supernatural and occult talent..." in a way that precludes judgment, in a self-evident, non-interpretational way?
Well, I am still interested in your opinion why ideomotor effect would not be an appropriate term for the phenomenon responsible for the drawings I create. If dowsing is explained as an aspect of idemotor, then you can surely understand how autonomous automatic drawing or writing manifests that way. This is my explanation of the mechanics rather than the dynamics of what I do and just an attempt to explain something that I have not been able to explain in any other way, relating it to a phenomen well explained by science.

[GzuzKryzt]

Well, I am still interested in your opinion why ideomotor effect would not be an appropriate term for the phenomenon responsible for the drawings I create. If dowsing is explained as an aspect of idemotor, then you can surely understand how autonomous automatic drawing or writing manifests that way. This is my explanation of the mechanics rather than the dynamics of what I do and just an attempt to explain something that I have not been able to explain in any other way, relating it to a phenomen well explained by science.

Aster, I have no interest in explanations concerning definitions of what you claim to be able to do. I'm glad to cede the point: If you call it ideomotor drawing, then ideomotor drawing it is.

Do you have any idea how you will demonstrate your claim [My claim is that my] automatic drawings are consequences of a paranormal, supernatural and occult talent.
...

in a way that rules out mundane explanations and judgment of any kind?