Reflexions. No offence please.

[Aster]

It’s probably easier for me to raise one million dollars in investment money ( IIIR project - International Institute for Ideomotor Research), than to win Randi's million dollar prize.

My views on the Randi project are revision. I suggest that Randi raises his million dollars with a million for every year that JREF does not elect a winner. (This would not make a difference to JREF, because supporting evidence suggests that the once impressive million dollars is not intended ever to be paid out.)

I wonder how mr. Randi would do, when ideomotorically being questioned and tested about his subconscious intent and sincere willingness to pay out this million dollar prize. I am also interested in a subconscious statement by mr. Randi in which he answers questions about his questionable belief in his own latent supernatural abilities and does he believe in something abstract as God.

Another suggestion I like to make is to competion for another prize of 1.1 million dollars serving those folks who come very close to the big sigar but fail; not suggesting therewith that the american dream will never to come true at JREF; The James Randi’s multimillion dollar prize for that bloke who shows works of super excellence in support of the supernatural and paranormal, personal experience. This way, the Randi institute would strive to tag a prize on the very best examples of delusion too, so nothing is lost and money is to be made.

I see JREF bridging two worlds, bringing two realities together as one. And that is what trance ideomotor consciousness is all about. Remember the 11:11 activation ? Remember the I AM presence ? Is presence ? ISIS presence ? Remember any of the initiations ? Of course not... You rather remain not conscious of something that you know exists, but deny. Skeptics are in denial. They wouldn't be skeptics if they weren't.

And laughing all the way to the bank, in the end James Randi will be a billionaire. Last thought : The truth of yesterday is no longer the truth of today. Todays truth can therefore not be expected to be true, as the truth of torrow is not far ahead. In fact, the truth that doesn't exist is (NOW). Truth of today, tested with evidence, is no longer a truth, just another paradigm. ‘Now’ is but a memorized part of a reality that once was, and tomorrow never comes, because it just cannot exist. The thought, the illusion, the simple fact of nothing, and its signature.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

Sorry, I didn't mean to start a new thread with this message.

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

[SFB]

Originally posted by Aster
....

My views on the Randi project are revision. I suggest that Randi raises his million dollars with a million for every year that JREF does not elect a winner. (This would not make a difference to JREF, because supporting evidence suggests that the once impressive million dollars is not intended ever to be paid out.)

I wonder how mr. Randi would do, when ideomotorically being questioned and tested about his subconscious intent and sincere willingness to pay out this million dollar prize. I am also interested in a subconscious statement by mr. Randi in which he answers questions about his questionable belief in his own latent supernatural abilities and does he believe in something abstract as God.

...


And laughing all the way to the bank, in the end James Randi will be a billionaire. Last thought : The truth of yesterday is no longer the truth of today. Todays truth can therefore not be expected to be true, as the truth of torrow is not far ahead. In fact, the truth that doesn't exist is (NOW). Truth of today, tested with evidence, is no longer a truth, just another paradigm. ‘Now’ is but a memorized part of a reality that once was, and tomorrow never comes, because it just cannot exist. The thought, the illusion, the simple fact of nothing, and its signature.

Rgds.,
Aster.


"Nothing's signature"????

Your post reveals your ignorance of how the process works. Why don't you read the procedures on the site? You might understand that he's not going to become a billionaire. The money's not his.

"I am also interested in a subconscious statement by mr. Randi in which he answers questions about his questionable belief in his own latent supernatural abilities and does he believe in something abstract as God."

Now that would be a great way to take his challenge. Prove to him he has supernatural abilities! Reveal the latent powers!

[Earthborn]

Aster, why start rambling now? I thought we were having quite a fruitful discussion?My views on the Randi project are revision. I suggest that Randi raises his million dollars with a million for every year that JREF does not elect a winner. (This would not make a difference to JREF, because supporting evidence suggests that the once impressive million dollars is not intended ever to be paid out.) You seem to argue that the money does not exist. What makes you say that? Why are you so sure of it?I wonder how mr. Randi would do, when ideomotorically being questioned and tested about his subconscious intent and sincere willingness to pay out this million dollar prize.I'm sorry, what is 'ideomotorical questioning' ?

I think Randi has alwyas been quite clear in that he does not intent to pay out the prize unless the rules of the challenge force him to do so: that is when someone actually shows paranormal abilities.Another suggestion I like to make is to competion for another prize of 1.1 million dollars serving those folks who come very close to the big sigar but fail.No people ever came close. In fact the tests are usually set up in such a way that even a small amount of paranormal ability could get a significant result and result in a winner. No one is ever required to perfom perfectly or even very good.

The only sitution I can think of when someone might get close to winning, is if this person uses such hard to detect fraud it is only found out at the last moments of the test. I don't think it is fair to give anyone a million dollars then.Remember the 11:11 activation ? Remember the I AM presence ? Is presence ? ISIS presence ? Remember any of the initiations ? Of course not... You rather remain not conscious of something that you know exists, but deny. Skeptics are in denial. They wouldn't be skeptics if they weren't.Instead of accusing people, why don't you try to enlighten us in these subjects? I don't remember these things because I never heard of them. If those things are evidence of anything, I want to know.

Don't assume people know exactly what you know and are just in denial.And laughing all the way to the bank, in the end James Randi will be a billionaire.As SFB already said: it is not Randi's own money. We do sometimes speak about 'Randi's Million' but that is technically incorrect. The money is not on his bankaccount, he does not get any dividents... It just sits there in the form of bonds and can only be used to pay someone following all the rules of the challenge and winning.
Randi did not pay it from his own pocket (except for 10000 dollars, wich is just 1% of the total). It came from an anonymous source who insisted that it would be unavaible to anyone except a challenge winner.

Apperently this source didn't trust Randi enough to just hand out the money. :pTodays truth can therefore not be expected to be true, as the truth of torrow is not far ahead. In fact, the truth that doesn't exist is (NOW). Truth of today, tested with evidence, is no longer a truth, just another paradigm.Yes, and science is designed with exactly that in mind. When scientists measure things, they always allow for a margin of error. That's because the devices and methods used to measure things are not perfect. It is possible that someone else invents a better way to measure things. When scientists form a conclusion it is usually something like: "According to our best measurements, the result is between 'this' and 'that' making 'so-and-so' hypothesis the most closest to reality."

Just imagine a simple example. Suppose a scientist from thousands of years ago tried to measure the shape of the Earth, and found no measurable curvature. Therefore he concludes that the Earth is probably flat. "But future measurements may be more accurate", he said, "and may find a curvature that is too small for my method to detect."

Later another guy manages to measure the how high the sun at noon at the same day in both Athens and Alexandria and concludes that the Earth is curved. He may have said: "The conclusion of [scientist 1] was correct within the accuracy of his methods. The Earth is far to flat to be measured in this way. However my experiment in both Athens and Alexandria indicates that there is a very small curvature not previously measurable by other methods. We can understand this very small curvature if we assume the Earth is a perfect sphere with a circumference of 22000 nautical miles, a size so unimaginably great that for almost all everday practical purposes the assumption of a flat Earth works equally well."

Much later some people find out the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but somewhat flattened at the poles. And later still they find out that it isn't a perfect flattened sphere, but that it has a few bumps...

See, this is how science works: every new truth is actually a refinement of the previous one. Although it is possible that some discovery can change a view of something very radically the earlier discoveries stay true within the margin of error allowed for them at the time.

[Psiload]

Aster wrote:

This way, the Randi institute would strive to tag a prize on the very best examples of delusion too, so nothing is lost and money is to be made.

If the million dollar prize really was for best delusion, this one would get my vote:

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

Lens flare as a visit from a dead relative... that's a gem.

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster
I wonder how mr. Randi would do, when ideomotorically being questioned and tested about his subconscious intent and sincere willingness to pay out this million dollar prize. I am also interested in a subconscious statement by mr. Randi in which he answers questions about his questionable belief in his own latent supernatural abilities and does he believe in something abstract as God.


Aster

Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? What is ideomotorical questioning? What does that mean? Can it be done over e-mail or better yet, through this message board?

When you refer to subconscious statements made by Mr. Randi, what are you referring to specifically? Are these statements he has made? Or you would like to hear him make?


Thanks.

[Aster]

What’s the problem with my post ?

You seem to argue that the money does not exist. What makes you say that? Why are you so sure of it?
The meaning of my communication is the response I get. I am absolutely sure that the money exists.
I'm sorry, what is 'ideomotorical questioning' ?
Ideomotor questioning. (LeCron)

Ideomotor questioning is a subset of autoquestioning, which is a set of methods and techniques for getting information directly from the subconscious mind. Often, ideomotor fingersignalling is used as one of these methods. (Erickson)
I think Randi has alwyas been quite clear in that he does not intent to pay out the prize unless the rules of the challenge force him to do so: that is when someone actually shows paranormal abilities.
Only after testing, which rules me out. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Randi will pay out when that happens. And I precelebrate that in my own choice of words.
No people ever came close. In fact the tests are usually set up in such a way that even a small amount of paranormal ability could get a significant result and result in a winner. No one is ever required to perfom perfectly or even very good.
I agree. And if that is what Randi thinks, it justifies my words that the million dollars is not intended ever to be paid out. My intent is that Randi pays out and offer an idea or setting in which this can happen.Instead of accusing people, why don't you try to enlighten us in these subjects? I don't remember these things because I never heard of them. If those things are evidence of anything, I want to know.
I am unaware of accusing anyone.
These are my own terms of conscious awareness.

A presence is something that IS.

IS-presence is the conscious awareness of something that IS.

ISIS-presence is the conscious awareness of being something that IS.

IAM-presence is the conscious awareness of I, of A, of M and of AM, its submodalities. I is Intelligentia, A is the word, M is Mazda or Merkabah.

As SFB already said: it is not Randi's own money. We do sometimes speak about 'Randi's Million' but that is technically incorrect. The money is not on his bankaccount, he does not get any dividents... It just sits there in the form of bonds and can only be used to pay someone following all the rules of the challenge and winning. Randi did not pay it from his own pocket (except for 10000 dollars, wich is just 1% of the total). It came from an anonymous source who insisted that it would be unavaible to anyone except a challenge winner.
I wrote my answer to SFB. Perhaps you haven’t read it. Again, I was not speaking about the million dollar prize money. I took the liberty to freely premeditate on mr. Randi getting rich from my proposal.
Yes, and science is designed with exactly that in mind. When scientists measure things, they always allow for a margin of error. That's because the devices and methods used to measure things are not perfect. It is possible that someone else invents a better way to measure things.
Hence, the paranormal experience I claim cannot be tested because there is no conclusive test available.

My friend Vladimir is occupied in that field. He created a device called Tetra for psychological consultation.
Just imagine a simple example <....>See, this is how science works: every new truth is actually a refinement of the previous one. Although it is possible that some discovery can change a view of something very radically the earlier discoveries stay true within the margin of error allowed for them at the time.

Very well explained.

What would be the most popular model of consciousness to you or amongst skeptics ?

Would you be prepared to further our discussion aan de hand van one of my ideomotor works ?

Rgds,
Aster.

[IMG]http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg[/IMG

[Aster]

Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? What is ideomotorical questioning? What does that mean? Can it be done over e-mail or better yet, through this message board?

I explained about ideomotor questioning in my reply to Earthborn.

I suppose it can be done over the phone, however the inducer is not present other than verbally and auditive. This is perhaps too small a basis for communication. However, for selfconscious communication it seems sufficient. The subject remains consciously aware of the ideomotor process taking place and knows the answer to the questions asked and might be able to communicate a verbal representation of the answers to the inducer on the phone.

Over email or messageboard... you try it :-)

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.aster-media.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

If the million dollar prize really was for best delusion, this one would get my vote:

We laugh about the people who proved that the world was flat. We make fun of peoples fantasies, presented as an expression of an experienced inner reality, and call that delusion.

I call it Art with a big A. A fantasy nevertheless ? Read on my friend. Like science, my conscious awareness is expanding because my creative spirit keeps me alive and well.

For you I have a suggestion. One day something may happen in your life that you can't explain. Next, you find the answer in the film, 'a clockwork orange'. You think: coincidence. But you will not be sure.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster



For you I have a suggestion. One day something may happen in your life that you can't explain. Next, you find the answer in the film, 'a clockwork orange'. You think: coincidence. But you will not be sure.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

WOH. Are you saying that something is going to happen to him that he will be able to explain by watching 'A Clockwork Orange'?!?! Good Lord, what the h*ll could he possibly be in for? Keep your head down man!

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster
What’s the problem with my post ?

Hence, the paranormal experience I claim cannot be tested because there is no conclusive test available.



Oh... Earthborn, this really puts your efforts on the ropes.

Originally posted by Aster

My friend Vladimir is occupied in that field. He created a device called Tetra for psychological consultation.

[/B]

But don't despair. There seems to be hope yet. Aster, can you tell us more about this device called Tetra for psychological consultation? How's it work? What does it measure? Would it be possible for us to see it work some how?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Aster


We laugh about the people who proved that the world was flat. We make fun of peoples fantasies, presented as an expression of an experienced inner reality, and call that delusion.

I call it Art with a big A. A fantasy nevertheless ? Read on my friend. Like science, my conscious awareness is expanding because my creative spirit keeps me alive and well.

For you I have a suggestion. One day something may happen in your life that you can't explain. Next, you find the answer in the film, 'a clockwork orange'. You think: coincidence. But you will not be sure.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

I have suggestions for you too...

Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Get over yourself.

[Aster]

[QUOTE]I have suggestions for you too...[Sometimes a banana is just a banana. Get over yourself./QUOTE]
The unpeeled banana seems to be just a banana. But what is a banana without the peel ? Most would say it is still a banana. Yet of the peel itself most would say it is the peel of the banana. And here we go, a banana is not just a banana. Now, what does the mind do with the visual and auditive representation of a simple banana ? It associates it with something completely different. To some it will just be the same banana. To others is may evoke thoughts and feelings of things, realities, however you call it, that have nothing to do with that same banana. That doesn't mean that a banana is not just a banana, but it does mean that a banana is also a lot more than just a banana.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Aster
[QUOTE]I have suggestions for you too...[Sometimes a banana is just a banana. Get over yourself./QUOTE]
The unpeeled banana seems to be just a banana. But what is a banana without the peel ? Most would say it is still a banana. Yet of the peel itself most would say it is the peel of the banana. And here we go, a banana is not just a banana. Now, what does the mind do with the visual and auditive representation of a simple banana ? It associates it with something completely different. To some it will just be the same banana. To others is may evoke thoughts and feelings of things, realities, however you call it, that have nothing to do with that same banana. That doesn't mean that a banana is not just a banana, but it does mean that a banana is also a lot more than just a banana.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

Yeah, like when you put bread in a toaster, and toast pops out... but, like, where does the bread go?

Oy vey
:rolleyes:

[Aster]

You've got it. Like the word banana and the suggestion banana. The word bread and the suggestion toast followed by the word toast and the suggestion bread.

Rgds.,
Aster.[

IMG]http://cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg[/IMG]

[jema]

The JREF challange is very easy to win, if anyone actually had any of the claimed abilitiies it would be won instantly. In fact there would be no need of the challenge anyway as supernatural abilities would be a known truth.

All the challenge requires in the final analysis is that something be measurable by rational means. An incredibly simple concept that only produces hysterics like this thread because the assorted fakes and self deluded individuals cannot face it.

jema

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Aster
You've got it. Like the word banana and the suggestion banana. The word bread and the suggestion toast followed by the word toast and the suggestion bread.

Rgds.,
Aster.[

IMG]http://cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg[/IMG]

I'll take it that your ideomotoric skills are not effective when it comes to detecting sarcasm.

I'll leave you with one more suggestion...

If you happen to be driving along in your car one day, and you come to a traffic signal... please don't concern yourself whether it is indicating actual red, or just a preconceived ideomotoric expression of the suggestion of the mirror image of a red banana... just hit the damned brakes.

[Aster]

I'll take it that your ideomotoric skills are not effective when it comes to detecting sarcasm.

Your sarcasm was returned.
Thanks for a good laugh.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[Aster]

All the challenge requires in the final analysis is that something be measurable by rational means. An incredibly simple concept that only produces hysterics like this thread because the assorted fakes and self deluded individuals cannot face it.

Hysterics... this thread ? Pls. explain.
This thread is not set up to defend a claim at Randies million.
It is to receive intelligent comments from skeptics like you.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[Aster]

Aster, can you tell us more about this device called Tetra for psychological consultation? How's it work? What does it measure? Would it be possible for us to see it work some how?

Yes, but Tetra has nothing to do with ideomotor effect so I prefer to send it to you over email or put it in a prive post on this website. Your choice.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[zensidhe]

Aster,

You have been very polite and interesting to talk to, so I do not want this to sound offensive. Forgive me if it does.

You have gone on at length about many things, but it seems to me that you have actually SAID very little. You almost SEEM to ramble, incoherently.

Would it be possible for you to state, as clearly as you can, something about what you do or have done.

I know you painted a picture of a grave outside of a graveyard, and later your brother was buried outside a graveyard. Was the painting of the same graveyard, or is the only similarity that your brother was buried on the outside of it...

Other then this, what else have you done or can you do that you think we might see as supernatural.

[sadluxation]

What's with all this privacy?
I think we all want to know about Tetra and what Aster can do which cannot be tested.

I'm very intrigued.

Most paranormal phenomena can be tested quite easily, one we know the subject can describe what He, or She can do.

If it can't be done, it can't be tested!

S

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster


Yes, but Tetra has nothing to do with ideomotor effect so I prefer to send it to you over email or put it in a prive post on this website. Your choice.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

A private message on this site is fine. Why not post it here however? Is it just that it's off topic?

We could start a new thread...

[Aster]

Test

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster
Test

You passed! ;)

[Aster]

You have been very polite and interesting to talk to, so I do not want this to sound offensive. Forgive me if it does.
You are forgiven :-)
You have gone on at length about many things, but it seems to me that you have actually SAID very little. You almost SEEM to ramble, incoherently.
It’s because I’m on an eternal drift. Earthborn wrote a good comment in this respect. Try to wade through the rambling; I will try to be as short and clear as I can.
Would it be possible for you to state, as clearly as you can, something about what you do or have done.
I am composing a list of claims and a list of things I can do under test conditions. This takes a little time.
I know you painted a picture of a grave outside of a graveyard, and later your brother was buried outside a graveyard. Was the painting of the same graveyard, or is the only similarity that your brother was buried on the outside of it...
It is nothing more than a detailed representation of what happened. There are specific features that coexist with reality, four years later. Perhaps I will start a new thread where we can discuss this painting and show some photographs of the burrial scene.
Other then this, what else have you done or can you do that you think we might see as supernatural.
You’ll find this within the list I am composing.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[zensidhe]

Originally posted by Aster

It’s because I’m on an eternal drift. Earthborn wrote a good comment in this respect. Try to wade through the rambling; I will try to be as short and clear as I can.

Great!
Originally posted by Aster

I am composing a list of claims and a list of things I can do under test conditions. This takes a little time.
[/B]
Great!
Originally posted by Aster

It is nothing more than a detailed representation of what happened. There are specific features that coexist with reality, four years later. Perhaps I will start a new thread where we can discuss this painting and show some photographs of the burrial scene.
[/B]
Great!

[Aster]

This is the original painting made in 1979 and a detailed image featuring the burrial scene that I have been talking about. Please be reminded that this is not ideomotor work.

The original painting (http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict1.jpeg)

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict3.jpeg

Detail of original painting, featuring burrial scene. (http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict5.jpeg)

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict2.jpeg

My family at the graveyard, february 1983, Israel. (http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/graveyard1.jpeg)

What I want you to see is that they are sitting and standing against the cemetary wall, behind which you can see the graves on sacred ground. You see my parents and my grandmother facing away from the wall to watch my brothers funeral and the grave improvised for him, situated outside the cemetary wall.

My brothers grave in 1983 (http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/graveyard2.jpeg)

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Earthborn]

The original painting: A truly emotionally gripping piece of art, I must say. Good work.

But let's be brutally honest: how likely is it that you foresaw your brothers funeral in this picture? Let's not just concentrate on the similarities, but also on the differences between the burial scene on the picture and on the photos.

One striking feature on the painting are the many Christian crosses. There are none in the photo. Since it is in Israel, I assume it was a Jewish cemetary?

The graveyard in the painting looks old and gloomy, as if it came from a horror movie. The graveyard on the photo's appears modern, organized and well cared for. This too is a difference.

The photos don't reveal what the coffin looked like, so I make no judgement on that.

The only similarity I see is that the grave is outside the cemetary wall. I can fully understand that your brother's burrial reminded you of the picture you drew years earlier. I can completely sympathize that this has great meaning to you. But unfortunately it does not convince me that you actually foresaw the event. Just the fact that your picture has so many elements, makes the chance that something that happens to you later in life that you drew before pretty big.

Of course if the pictures did match more closely, skeptics would say that you made the drawing after the events. You just can't win with things that happened in the past and are not checkable anymore.

Perhaps to make sure that this can't happen with any future revelations in pictures, it is a good idea to get a date stamp on a copy of your works by an official organization. For instance, by sending a closed envelope with a copy of your work to yourself. This will enable you to prove to researchers that you actually made the picture before it happened. You may want to send yourself several copies of the same work, so you can prove it to more than one researcher, as opening the envelope will make the protection useless.

In the Netherlands, I think you can also get an official date stamp on artistic works at the tax office. Might also be a good idea. Such protections only prove however that you didn't temper with the evidence, it doesn't prove that any 'hits' aren't coincidental.

One last question: if this picture is not an ideomotor drawing, why do you assume that ideomotor drawing shows you anything special?

Great painting though, nothing wrong with that. :cool:

[Aster]

One striking feature on the painting are the many Christian crosses. There are none in the photo. Since it is in Israel, I assume it was a Jewish cemetary?

No, it wasn’t. My brother was not jewish, nor of any religion, and so we had great difficulty getting a space at any cemetary. Finally we were offered a space for him on the premises of an american catholic cemetary. What we were not told in advance was that his grave could not be admitted on the cemetaries holy grounds, behind the wall. His grave was dug on a small strip of land outside of the cemetary holy grounds, within a few yards of a public toilet. The original painting is completely symbolical. The christian crosses are symbols too, replacement signs depicting a perceived designation of a spiritual or religious comprehension.
The graveyard in the painting looks old and gloomy, as if it came from a horror movie. The graveyard on the photo’s appears modern, organized and well cared for. This too is a difference.
Perhaps the atmosphere of the whole painting is horrific, and not only the graveyard scene, because the reality that it represents ís horrific.
The photos don’t reveal what the coffin looked like, so I make no judgement on that.
I’m sure that it may serve a purpose to mark the differences, but in my understanding, this is not so relevant. His coffin was a flat square wooden box, unlike the coffin in the painting, which has a more or less pointed roof. There are other differences that are more appealing to me: next to the grave in the painting for instance is another grave, showing two gravestones behind a fence. On the gravesite of my brother there was no such grave. What idea made me paint that ?
The only similarity I see is that the grave is outside the cemetary wall. I can fully understand that your brother’s burrial reminded you of the picture you drew years earlier. I can completely sympathize that this has great meaning to you. But unfortunately it does not convince me that you actually foresaw the event. Just the fact that your picture has so many elements, makes the chance that something that happens to you later in life that you drew before pretty big.
Again, symbolic representations do not aim to be exact representations of reality. The fact that the graveyard scene coïncides with what háppened (and not so much what wás) in reality, makes me view the entire painting that way. And the other two, that I haven’t shown yet. All elements of that painting should therefore be carefully examined and analysed. I will prove how this analysis synchronises with metaphysical traditions.

I remember how I started this painting with the skull in the centre. The fact that the skull has some human features but is no exact representation of my brothers skull, or a human skull, is irrelevant. The fact that it is badly damaged is relevant. My brother died as a result of a gunshot in the head that obviously damaged his skull. I preconceived the image of a damadged skull. As an example of one such metaphysical tradition, the symbol of the eye inside the mouth opening of the skull may be representative of the all seeing eye, the sixth sense, or the subconscious preconceived knowing. And do you see how the skull and the graveyard scene are linked by stairways ?

Of course if the pictures did match more closely, skeptics would say that you made the drawing after the events. You just can’t win with things that happened in the past and are not checkable anymore.
Yeah, right J. I don’t mind that, I don’t háve to prove my experience scientifically in order for my work to be accepted by a general audience. Science, one day, perhaps many decades from now, will prove things that will support what I am trying to tell and show you here. You are witnessing a true story, dismissed by skeptics and science for reasons that may seem correct today, but wrong tomorrow. The original painting is dated 1979. I have people who can testify to the fact that they have seen it years before my brother died. This is because I knew something was up with that painting, that it was an important message that I didn’t understand, and I showed it to many people that will remember and can testify to this.
Perhaps to make sure that this can’t happen with any future revelations in pictures, it is a good idea to get a date stamp on a copy of your works by an official organization. For instance, by sending a closed envelope with a copy of your work to yourself. This will enable you to prove to researchers that you actually made the picture before it happened. You may want to send yourself several copies of the same work, so you can prove it to more than one researcher, as opening the envelope will make the protection useless.
I appreciate your thoughts, but my art was never a scientific experiment. It was, and still is, an experience. I never realised that these old paintings, and my ideomotor art later, would have to be treated this way in order to scientifically prove something now. My art is dated with the same pen I draw with. They do not leave to a buyer without a ceal that bares my personal mark. That’s all I am prepared to do.
In the Netherlands, I think you can also get an official date stamp on artistic works at the tax office. Might also be a good idea. Such protections only prove however that you didn’t temper with the evidence, it doesn’t prove that any ‘hits’ aren’t coincidental.
Well, that would be a more practical way to handle this.
One last question: if this picture is not an ideomotor drawing, why do you assume that ideomotor drawing shows you anything special ?
Good question. The answer is embedded in my first post. See, the ideomotor movement often seems to just kick in at any given moment. I do not know what other people experience, but I can testify to the fact, and support this with (creative) evidence, that the ideomotor experience is a progressive experience. In my case you should understand that the ideomotor effect started off as a riping process. It slowly grew inside me for at least 4 years as a mental process, with a voice of its own, without clear ideomotor movement of the limbs prior to me making that painting. I didn’t understand this mental plague at all, that had me in its grip, until it was finally born within the rude awakening in 1983. Just like a vulcano building up to the outburst. That is exaclty how this happened and how I will describe it in my book. But before the actual birth of ideomotor drawing, I could sense how my hand was already starting to want to lead the way. I just was much more in control then.
I don’t assume nothing. I know that ideomotor drawing shows me anything special because it is ‘the voice by movement’ of the subconscious automatic thought process. That’s why. The ideomotor process may not seem anything special to those who even know about it, which is probably less than 1/1000 % of the people in this world, but it is an incredibly powerful (creative) asset to humans. And it deserves IIIR.
Great painting though, nothing wrong with that.
Technically speaking it is absolutely nothing to write home about. And in that respect I am no competent artist either. It is the content that makes it great indeed. And worth an in depth analysis.
Thank you for your thoughts, Earthborn.
Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[c4ts]

This way, the Randi institute would strive to tag a prize on the very best examples of delusion too, so nothing is lost and money is to be made.

No way. Franko has an unfair advantage.

[Aster]

No way. Franko has an unfair advantage.

Did I forgot about Franko ?
Thought he was put away safely somewhere.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Aster
[B]...symbolic representations do not aim to be exact representations of reality. The fact that the graveyard scene coïncides with what háppened (and not so much what wás) in reality, makes me view the entire painting that way. And the other two, that I haven’t shown yet. All elements of that painting should therefore be carefully examined and analysed. I will prove how this analysis synchronises with metaphysical traditions.

Right there you come to the heart of the matter. The symbolism can be interpreted any way the interpreter chooses. By your own words, it is not an exact representation of reality but a coincidence. If it's not real, how do you prove your case? It's your interpretation spawned by your imagination, just as are the 'metaphysical traditions' you speak of.

[Aster]

Right there you come to the heart of the matter. The symbolism can be interpreted any way the interpreter chooses. By your own words, it is not an exact representation of reality but a coincidence. If it's not real, how do you prove your case? It's your interpretation spawned by your imagination, just as are the 'metaphysical traditions' you speak of.

You say that to the Dalai Lama, or you say that about Blavatski or the Baghavad Ghitta. And I suppose you know what imagination is and can explain that to me here; nothing but cocreational illusion and delusion ? Science is opening up for metaphysical traditions but I guess you hadn't noticed that or you are just dismissing it as a hardline skeptic. That's okay. We need you to do that.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Aster


You say that to the Dalai Lama, or you say that about Blavatski or the Baghavad Ghitta. And I suppose you know what imagination is and can explain that to me here; nothing but cocreational illusion and delusion ? Science is opening up for metaphysical traditions but I guess you hadn't noticed that or you are just dismissing it as a hardline skeptic. That's okay. We need you to do that.

Rgds.,
Aster.


The Dalai Lama puts forth his views as a religion. On that basis, they are not scientifically debatable. Mme. Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society also were founded under religious tenets (borrowing from several faiths), although some of her stunts ascribed to the supernatural were simple medium's con games. Also, the Bhagavad Gita (if you're going to play the intellectual, LEARN TO SPELL) is a religious text.

You, on the other hand, are putting forth your views on ideomotor activities as facts. Facts are fair game for questions, requests for reinforcing proofs, and strict examination.

Knock off the attitude. You came to us. If you're that high and mighty in the paranormal world, why are you bothering to show up here? If you seek validation of what you claim, expect a long list of tough questions. "Science opening up for metaphysical traditions" is not the same as accepting them blindly without question.

And that bit about 'dismissing it as a hard line skeptic...we need you to do that' sounds too familiarly like another whiner who couldn't get us to accept his woowoo theories out of hand, and when pressed for proof ran imprecating into the darkness.

Want to convince us that what you say is true? THEN PROVE IT. So far, you haven't.

[Aster]

Also, the Bhagavad Gita (if you're going to play the intellectual, LEARN TO SPELL) is a religious text.
I'm sorry, slight case of dislexia...
You, on the other hand, are putting forth your views on ideomotor activities as facts. Facts are fair game for questions, requests for reinforcing proofs, and strict examination.
I have no problem with that, rather welcome it. Perhaps it doesn't come across that way.
Knock off the attitude. You came to us. If you're that high and mighty in the paranormal world, why are you bothering to show up here? If you seek validation of what you claim, expect a long list of tough questions. "Science opening up for metaphysical traditions" is not the same as accepting them blindly without question.
It appears that I'm not the only one having a bit of an attitude here. And what's the problem with having a bit of an attitude ? Having an attitude about thát. I have not yet put up a list of claims here. I did propose something that resembles a claim but so far I have not read an intelligent comment from you.
And that bit about 'dismissing it as a hard line skeptic...we need you to do that' sounds too familiarly like another whiner who couldn't get us to accept his woowoo theories out of hand...
You are constantly talking in the 'us' mode. Who is 'us' ? Your group votes me out of here. Yet there seem to be others who have voted my thread as interesting, considering the stars that remain behind the topic.
... and when pressed for proof ran imprecating into the darkness
There is only one way into the light: through the darkness. I do not see myself running anywhere. When it is my time to leave here, I expect to leave with a good feeling.

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

[Charlie in Dayton]

Please see here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=447005#post447005)

[Earthborn]

His grave was dug on a small strip of land outside of the cemetary holy grounds, within a few yards of a public toilet.Awful...The christian crosses are symbols too, replacement signs depicting a perceived designation of a spiritual or religious comprehension. ...(snip).... Perhaps the atmosphere of the whole painting is horrific, and not only the graveyard scene, because the reality that it represents ís horrific.Yes, I can see that. However, let's take a step back from the emotional involvement and look at it from a more objective view...
I hope you can see that you are retrofitting: looking back and making up excuses why certain differences are there. Now, I'm not saying that they aren't there because of the reasons you say, only that it is impossible to know for sure.

Suppose the painting looked more similar than it does now. You would be amazed at how similar it looked. Now it doesn't look as similar, so you are trying to fit the painting with reality. If it was different in any other way, you probably would try to do the same thing. The problem with that is that whatever it looks, it will be a perfect match in your mind.

If we are to decide whether you really foresaw the future, we should only consider the real similarities and count the retro-fittings as misses. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to believe in their significance, just means there is no way to figure out how significant they really are.On the gravesite of my brother there was no such grave. What idea made me paint that ?You see: this can be seen as an example of retro-fitting too. You are surprised about the other grave, because you associate the burial scene in the painting with your brother's burial.

Now suppose the two are not related at all. Would it be surprising that there are some major differences? Of course not.Again, symbolic representations do not aim to be exact representations of reality. The fact that the graveyard scene coïncides with what háppened (and not so much what wás) in reality, makes me view the entire painting that way.I understand that. I probably would too. However lots of things coincide with other things, it doesn't necessarily mean they are connected, that one caused the other. When things 'coincide' we usually call them 'coincidences'.And the other two, that I haven’t shown yet.Please do.I will prove how this analysis synchronises with metaphysical traditions.There is no doubt that many of your work will closely resemble metaphysical/religious traditions. But skeptics will say that these similarities are caused because they are all made up by human brains and since these are all very similar, very similar images come from them. And they are of course influenced by the culture they are in and know many of the tradional imagery. So similarities with other tradional imagery are not indicative that something metaphysical is going on.I remember how I started this painting with the skull in the centre. The fact that the skull has some human features but is no exact representation of my brothers skull, or a human skull, is irrelevant.Oh, it's a skull... I didn't notice it at first. I did see some strange organic looking thing, but couldn't understand it as a skull. But I can see it now. Let's look at it from a purely symbolic viewpoint. I will now temporarily stop speaking from an independant, objective, skeptical viewpoint and start talking from symbolics. I will indicate clearly when I start and finish:

[symbolism]
Have you noticed how similar it is to you Ima'an picture? It has the same almost perfect symetry. The crack on the skull's forehead coincides perfectly with the symetry line of Ima'an.

It is as if the skull is simply Ima'an, stripped of its flesh. There are just a few pieces hanging loose, with the same wrinkled and flesh-coloured texture as the Ima'an picture has.
[end symbolism]

It is as if you had a scary image in your head for a long time, and gradually gave a it friendlier face.As an example of one such metaphysical tradition, the symbol of the eye inside the mouth opening of the skull may be representative of the all seeing eye, the sixth sense, or the subconscious preconceived knowing.Yes, that thing does look a bit like an eye. But let me present you with an alternative symbolic explanation.

[symbolism]
The iris looks strange for an iris, and the flesh colour seems to indicate to me that it is something different. I can also see it as an embryo, growing inside an egg: a symbol of rebirth.
[end symbolism]

Remember that anything I write between the [symbolism] and [end symbolism] tags, is purely my interpretation, and does not represent objective reality in any way. My interpretation is not in any way better than your own.And do you see how the skull and the graveyard scene are linked by stairways ?Yes, I did.

[symbolism]
And did you notice that on the sides of the stairway, there are lanterns or crystals hanging, which seem to lighten the graveyard. Perhaps it's not such a gloomy image after all...
[end symbolism]I appreciate your thoughts, but my art was never a scientific experiment. It was, and still is, an experience. I never realised that these old paintings, and my ideomotor art later, would have to be treated this way in order to scientifically prove something now. My art is dated with the same pen I draw with. They do not leave to a buyer without a ceal that bares my personal mark. That’s all I am prepared to do.Please remember that you are firmly convinced that you foresaw the future in at least one painting. If you are sure that it happened once, it is strange to assume it can't happen again. Just suppose it does happen again, it would be nice to be able to prove it, wouldn't it?

And getting an official date stamp on your work might solve a few copyright issues too. So even if your work is not a scientific experiment, it is a simple, but smart thing to do.

[Aster]

I hope you can see that you are retrofitting: looking back and making up excuses why certain differences are there. Now, I'm not saying that they aren't there because of the reasons you say, only that it is impossible to know for sure.
Yes and no. First of all, if there is nothing else to go by, this is a creative and intelligent thing to do. Secondly, I am not making up excuses for those differences. I was just pointing them out and merely explaining what symbolic representations are.
Suppose the painting looked more similar than it does now. You would be amazed at how similar it looked. Now it doesn't look as similar, so you are trying to fit the painting with reality. If it was different in any other way, you probably would try to do the same thing. The problem with that is that whatever it looks, it will be a perfect match in your mind.
Say 95% of these paintings remains an unsolved mystery where I believe that an equal percentage of the figures has a profound meaning imaging possible scenes of afterlife and of spiritual crisis, which is common for people with NDE.
If we are to decide whether you really foresaw the future, we should only consider the real similarities and count the retro-fittings as misses. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to believe in their significance, just means there is no way to figure out how significant they really are.
Beware of one thing though. These paintings are like dreams. Images of past and future, of emotions and thought, may simultaniously be represented in these paintings. Symbolic presences and imagery may overlap. Not one element in them may exist in one and the same reality. If there is a spread of significance in them, there is also a way to figure out how significant they really are. As Vladimir says, new methods and techniques must be developed in order to prove their significance.
You see: this can be seen as an example of retro-fitting too. You are surprised about the other grave, because you associate the burial scene in the painting with your brother's burial.
No, this is an example of your bright talent for skeptic interpretation. I am surprised about the other grave, not because it was not physically present at the location, but because I wonder what it means in relation to the overall message that this painting represents. It cannot be counted as retrofitting, just like the skull, the bridge and the stairs cannot be discounted as retrofittings. This painting is not merely about the location and circumstance of my brothers funeral. It is about a deep introspective psychological interweaving put forward by the psyche, spidering a web that attempts to bridge reality and subreality, pointing towards just one, true, material coördinate in order to make one see and justify the significance of this amazing psychic experience.
Now suppose the two are not related at all. Would it be surprising that there are some major differences? Of course not.
Okay, but just suppose the two áre related, it doesn’t surprise me that there are differences either. I just wonder what these other elements mean and how they all relate.

Again, symbolic representations do not aim to be exact representations of reality. The fact that the graveyard scene coïncides with what háppened (and not so much what wás) in reality, makes me view the entire painting that way.
I understand that. I probably would too. However lots of things coincide with other things, it doesn't necessarily mean they are connected, that one caused the other. When things 'coincide' we usually call them 'coincidences'.
I understand that. Then again, it does not rule out this possibility either. Where a skeptic chooses to dismiss certain associations as coïncidences because there is no sense in it, spiritually attuned people tend to look deeper as they physically feel the emotion that the synchronicity represents. Two things coincide and may not be connected in any way, yet there is another dimension of reality, of consciousness, that teaches us how synchronicity overrules the coïncidental makeup and inspires intuïtive knowing, suggesting there ïs a connection. I live and swear by that mystical part of reality, it’s integrative psychology for me. Because in case of coïncidence I don’t feel nothing. But when there’s synchronicity in play, I always feel it, emotionally, physically, mentally.
There is no doubt that many of your work will closely resemble metaphysical/religious traditions. But skeptics will say that these similarities are caused because they are all made up by human brains and since these are all very similar, very similar images come from them. And they are of course influenced by the culture they are in and know many of the tradional imagery. So similarities with other tradional imagery are not indicative that something metaphysical is going on.
I agree. One day, science will discover a means to retrieve and disclose dna-memory. You may not have ever read a book about the metaphysical, or of cultural evolution, but all the information is already there inside you, as dna-memory. Just a new chapter of a new book that has no end, as it pertains to the illusion of reality.
It is as if you had a scary image in your head for a long time, and gradually gave a it friendlier face.
Wow... I didn’t expect this perceptive other side of you;) Excellent, food for thought. You even see Ima’ans face as friendly. That is remarkable. You’re not easily scared away are you ?
I can also see it as an embryo, growing inside an egg: a symbol of rebirth.
You are a creative seër and you incorporate more than one realm of thinking. I like that in a person, it is versatile and uncommon in my circle. One of my early ideomotor work shows a latin inscription : vivis i viva nova. It is not correct latin by any means, but it sure isn’t dutch or english. What kind of a skeptic would a person be if s/he believes in reïncarnation, yet is skeptical about it ?
And did you notice that on the sides of the stairway, there are lanterns or crystals hanging, which seem to lighten the graveyard. Perhaps it's not such a gloomy image after all...
And now you have just won yourself two free tickets for my next exhibition:cool:
Please remember that you are firmly convinced that you foresaw the future in at least one painting. If you are sure that it happened once, it is strange to assume it can't happen again. Just suppose it does happen again, it would be nice to be able to prove it, wouldn't it?
I am assuming, perhaps claiming, that an ideomotor trance experience involves a psychic moment. Perhaps forecasting is a bit different from prediciting. Yet, the idea about ideomotor trance experiencing is that it involves a psychic moment, a clear sighted forcasting or even an element of prophecy. And how could it be otherwise ? Forecasting could be just projecting an internal image of a movement into the future. Prediciting a future event follows the creation of the image of it which is then followed by ideomotor act. Only the latter would be supernatural, wouldn’t it ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

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

1st painting 1979
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict1.jpeg
2nd painting 1979
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict7.jpeg
3rd painting 1979
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/pict6.jpeg

[Aster]

Please remember that you are firmly convinced that you foresaw the future in at least one painting. If you are sure that it happened once, it is strange to assume it can't happen again. Just suppose it does happen again, it would be nice to be able to prove it, wouldn't it?

Not only the future but also the mystical past. These paintings, and I mean all three of them, pertain to scenes of the Egyptian book of the dead, describing the pre- and afterlife. I had never heared of the Egyptian book of the dead before some years ago, I believe 1999. Now I see how many scenes depict the same. Retrofitting ? Ofcourse!

In a very strange and remote way, I feel that it is happening all the time. My ideomotor art draws out core identity pictures of the past, present and future, all in overlapping imagery, an extremely wide and open perspective on reality.

Suppose we compose a group of persons who are contracted to do something in the future, for instance get him/herself a pet. We determine the time by which he/she will have done this. Next, mr. Randi will take the test and is hypnotised or trance induced. We question his superconscious mind about the intentions of the person and use ideomotor effect to record what the results of the intentions have been. We would need the worlds best Ericksonian NLP hypnotherapist in order to do this test succesfully.

Two things:
1. Mr. Randi's superconscious mind may not be willing to give correct answers and cheat as a result of this, concluding in the failure of this test because it inflicts with one greater interest, which is to debunk any superconscious claim.
2. What constitutes proof in this case? Should we design 50 of these ideas and have him test all 50, then how many out of 50 would constitute proof when answered correctly ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

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