SP - 12 -- Phillips Responds To Phillips Phenomenology Comments By TCI Writers

First, I want to thank Lon, Erich and Bruce for their responses - especially when confronted with a self proclaimed piece of esoteric knowledge - LOL. It is a real rush to read the variety of possible thought patterns formed when responding to a singular posting of the nature I provided. Indeed, as you are probably sick of on our blog is me going to the Phillips Phenomenology already so much - I guess it is the freedom I feel on this blog to respond at the most fundamental levels of perception that I use as my reference point.

(To everyone, it was the PP that jolted this blog into existence - that post is in the sidebar - it is the comments between Bruce D., Flower, and myself - that inspired a morning exchange in E-Mails between Bruce and I where I said something along the lines of - don't be surprised to see me take this into a new blog idea - and 45 minutes later TCI was born and the URL sent to Bruce - who immediately replaced the pathetic original look I had for TCI. --- I like to review this history on occasion to inform readers who may be new to TCI.)

Anyway, thanks guys for your posts and let me first respond by saying -- WHAT -- YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN SYSTEM? ---- lol --- Oh, well, only my mind has such pollution within it evidently. Although Lon, that sounds suspiciously close to a phenomenology and Erich - your latest post http://psychonauticus.blogspot.com/2010/12/set-and-setting-top-ten-guide-to-4th.html on your site easily suggests a `digestion of reality is known' - and I want to assure you that despite my totally gray hair that my perspectives have the same backings.

Indeed, let me look at Erich's response first - and my reaction is that I love your writing style and appreciate having you in the starting rotation at TCI. Anyway, let me respond to:

I'll confess I've never been able to understand phenomenology (yet); in fact it took me three tries just to spell it for this response. My natural instinct as a autodidact, then, is then to dismiss it-- distract the imaginary thesis dissertation professor with a card trick. And another is to urge the realization that once we drift too far into the realm of big words and fixed ideas, we can get lost.

Again, awesome start had me laughing out loud and I'm not bs'ing - to be called `the imaginary thesis dissertation professor with a card trick' - is one of the highlights of alltime comments about my ideas. And, I agree, the idea of a fixed set of ideas, in the realm of big words, (whatisnotabletonotbe - for instance), is an area that despite the fixtures surrounding us all - can allow all to get totally lost in just positing the perceptions `correctly'.

I visualize this as a two dimensional chessboard, and "I" am the king, able to move in any direction, one square at a time. However, there may be spirits or enemy pieces in squares very close to mine who can't touch me due to only being able to move diagonally, and so forth. And of course, there's the off board vastness, where the murdered pieces go.

I'm using my editor's power to feature just how cool your writing style is above - this a A+ TCI stuff and thanks for getting the idea of directly commenting on words within the seed.

However, all that said, I found Phillips' phenomenology graspable, as it reminds me a little of Seth speaks and a lot of other channeled info I've read over the years (Rick, you're a channel!) The spirits who've channeled through me, I should point out, have tended to be rogues and charlatans, angels and devils disguised as each other... they do this so well I have to take what the angels say with skepticism and appreciate the tough love behind the tortures of Hell. In the end, they're all you, and me, togetherrr-- Sarah. So the question is, do you trust yourself? Can you tell when you're lying to yourself? If you answered yes, then right there, the answer is no.

(To speak in Gurdjieff talk) - This one has not thought about Seth in ages - and indeed, as this one expressed, these were NOT my thoughts - this one swears. This one visited with the spirits of the plant at extreme levels for years - when this Phenomenology `came thru' at the most extreme stoned levels on the herb from the Colombian farming community. With you and Lon reaching into some of the `sub-space' of the Phenomenology Structure and anyone knowing that the same is happening to Bruce D. (by his writings of his experiences, especially lately) - the very idea of `channeling information' hardly seems beyond reason.

I haven't read Barbour, but I think I understand the concept of reality 'picking the next moment' -but I also know how little effort is actually involved in making the 'next' picked 'moment' completely separated from the normal path, it's all done with the ease of flipping a cable channel... if you know how (and our social order makes it as hard as possible to know how, and with good reason). I would agree that time is illusory, and/or relative, but so is space, once you escape our three dimensional consensual reality --even one's own personal non-able to be-ness can be dissolved, re-manifested, obliterated and returned to like a book some elder god reads before bed time. And on that level, so is life, and certainly language. When you transcend time, space is not far behind, and language has to be let go long before that... if you can--through whatever neurochemical or spiritual means at your disposal--get a grasp of this fathomless eternal moment, you won't be able to bring your notebook

All it involves is a slight shift in brain chemistry, the equivalent of letting go of the structural life raft and trusting to breathe in the salty water... the doors of perception kick open and what was once merely, say, a candle in front of you in the darkness, becomes an axis in time/space, hell, Jesus on the cross, God, Moses' burning bush blazing five miles in the distance as you travel through the desert night, and the eye of a dragon as it slithers on scales of air and smoke through your boudoir, all at once, and you now understand why what to you is merely the picking up of a book off a coffee table is life and death to distant civilizations, cities you can reach only through sleeping, shrinking to sub-atomic level, or traveling to the opposite end of the galaxy, the realization that your entire life and set of memories is all encompassed in every drop of water you

Again Erich, you absolutely can `bring it with words' -- now, I must include another name of a writer that I can't express how highly I enjoyed his take on how perceptions are formed -- Lujan Matus. Now, I won't go into here my own perceptions but you can find his main work on Google books (except what they don't include so that the book will have value to be purchased). Anyway, he speaks much about the imprinting of every object at the earliest of ages for a child and boy oh boy - does it make sense. (BTW, I treat ideas as ideas and don't hold them up to `proof' of divine origin - like Lujan's ideas really being told to him by Don Juan - as Don Juan did with Carlos Castaneda. To me, it's the minds of Lujan and Carlos at work in putting the ideas to words. Indeed, I kinda like that Phenomenology has no real need for some divine origin. Actualization is actualization - explain it - that is Phenomenology.)



In my PP, the not-able-to-be would ONLY be `within ones own space' - quite possibly at what others have called the `do spot'. It's the part of the structure that actualizes YOUR real - that will be reflected to others - in other parts of the PP. Ironically, while the PP maintains that EVERYTHING is a `Space' - it all was motivated by a question I had in my mind `How Could Time Have Ever Begun?' (time in the traditional common consensus)


I imagined a field of `ableness' - `able-to-be(ness)' - that emerged from -- indeed -- Nothingness. Nothingness, included potential. (much to its surprise I suspect) However, this able(ness) was ONLY that for an `ending eternity' - which to the PP emerged as a `limitation of that space' - into the momentum of `one of the PP' concepts (and I have an argument for each).


People who experience smoking DMT or doing ayuhuasca or iboga in shamanistic studies, will tell you--their eyes wide with respect and trepidation--that the world is much wilder and stranger than we can imagine, and it's all right here around us, all the time-- our reality is like Hot 97 on the FM dial, but all you need to do is turn the knob a bit to the left or right and our reality dissolves into static and some mighty strange stations start up, and when you're completely outside it, you realize the whole range of stations is played at once--and has always been playing, just waiting for some radio to tune it in-- the pure possibility and intent.






Indeed. However, one only needs something such as `Mutual Hypnosis' as done by Charles Tart to induce real explorable mutual worlds perceptions as real as ours too. The availablity of other perception structures is mindboggling for sure.
 
Frankly Erich, I could have commented on nearly every line you wrote as it was so rich in ideas - so I will leave my response at this and move onto Lon:
 
Lon, anyone who would consider you just a person with a successful paramormal - should read your response - thanks for taking the time to be HEAVY -- just as Erich was (and I too I hope). And, I see much truth in much of what you write - indeed, I believe ALL TCI writers to be on somewhat the same wavelength in some manner.
 
First Lon, when you start with "The body is our general medium for having a world."  -- the brilliant statement of Maurice Merleau-Ponty - I would add just one thing --- The World Is Earth. We, exist on a F-ing planet - that is indeed embedded with the characteristics as real as ours. If we were NOT on a `world' -- as we may be after dying - our experiencing altered states - the field becomes boundlessly ----------- able-to-not-be.
 
There is a wide belief that all humans are composite beings, meaning that we have two fundamental sides...a body and a soul. In the language of remote viewing the soul is known as the ‘subspace aspect’ of a person...basically the non-physical component of a human being. When death occurs the physical body is no longer a composite being but continues to exist as a subspace entity. The physical realm of solid matter is both separate from and connected to subspace


Using my PP - it would be how the future becomes the present that becomes the past (the actualized part) - all being connected viaspaces of the phenomenology structure.
 
Anyway Lon, thanks for adding to the discussion with a full pedal to the floor driving of worthwhile reading heavyness.
 
And, Bruce - what the F can I say - our minds are frighteningly similar. I loved your disclaimer.
 
The Net of a Experiential Web




1. Reality as a state of sentience is non verbal. The conversion of perception to thought, whether it is measured in the velocity studies of biochemists, Krishnamurti or Zen, there is a process of transcription. The `structure' of phenomenology provides the field for transcription. Indeed, a transcription is also `painting' that phenomenology.


2. This transcription by language based on semiotic environmental cues is based on comparative relationships that the mind analyzes, much like the basis of the perception of sequential time. It is a process that is a quasi-reality superimposed on a pre-existing non verbal state of discerning what G Spencer Brown would call "distinctions" - Like `the most similar with the least intrinsic difference'.


3. These distinctions create an illusion of movement. Whether it is the linearity of calender time, the biological arc of creatures, or then versus "now." - The `notabletonotbe' stamp is the final count of potential.


4. All perceptual information being transcribed by thought within the illusion of movement, makes all knowledge a matter of context in which predictors are scrims, or self referential to the environment in which they arise. I would only add that IMO knowledge is also part of the unactualized.


Beyond The Mesh of A Web



Reality is a tripartite relationship of the non verbal, hence invisible becoming manifested while the verbal, the perceptual and material dissipates into the non verbal, and our own locus as such is that we are poised in the reconciliation of becoming. The most arduous process is to see that neither the invisible nor the visible are the point of the exercise, that our reality having one foot in biological material and the other invisible even to itself, underlines the often quoted reality cited by Jesus, wherein, we have no place to rest our heads, a truism. Heavy Duty Stuff.


One aspect of myself as a locus of manifestation is never the same twice and yet much like the photonic perception of vision, there is a external perception that there is a form of a steady state rather than a discontinuous one that is neither material nor entirely invisible, otherwise these words would be transparent beyond your ken. To me too the `steadiness' is nearly totally perplexing -- especially without IMO the PP idea of not-able-to-not-be(ness) - the determined. Which as self-conscious spaces - we `see' as a flow.


Paranormality



The process of the transcription of thought applied to non verbal referents of time is akin to a movie screen that reflects this reality of neither being rooted materially or completely invisible. Our space time is not discrete.


It is the inverse square of our triangulated perception, that is reality, that by it's nature cannot be ascribed to our orientating markers. Do they have this level of thinking on other websites?


Finally, I want to take on the words of TCI author Bruceleeeowe who put this in the comments section of my post:


Hello Sir,



your phenomenology much sounds like philosophy. This is very similar to eastern philosophy of karma and 'Meemansa' . A recent work in quantum physics suggest that time could indeed be an emergent phenomenon like gravity. I'll like to review the case in context of that paper in next post. It's said that philosophy is easier to comprehend than physics but now, I know it's not! Bruceleeeowe, thanks for your ` comment' - next time please put it as a post response so that everyone knows what writers on TCI have to say. That said, I'd LOVE to have you do a post like that - work it up ---- we will get the timing down better in an e-mail to everyone shortly. Anyway, I'd love to read the connection between Meemansa, gravity, time and the PP.




Okay, readers of TCI - I think my mind has about reached the end point of this session.


I want to thank the responders to our posts too - and when you post as a TCI writer please respond to those commenting on your posts too.


I want to thank again, Erich, Lon and the Bruce's for the use of their subspaces in their minds - may we do it many more times.

Strickler Responds to Phenomenology

"The body is our general medium for having a world." - Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Over the past several months, I have commenced to rejuvenate and hone my capabilities for gathering information on spiritual targets by using my subspace mind. In other words, I shift my awareness from one place to another or remote view.

There is a wide belief that all humans are composite beings, meaning that we have two fundamental sides...a body and a soul. In the language of remote viewing the soul is known as the ‘subspace aspect’ of a person...basically the non-physical component of a human being. When death occurs the physical body is no longer a composite being but continues to exist as a subspace entity. The physical realm of solid matter is both separate from and connected to subspace.

The subspace mind recognizes and processes data differently from the physical mind. You are not inducing an altered state of consciousness. Instead, you are following a set of procedures that allows you to shift your attention from one area of your perception to another.

Science, for the most part, does not accept remote viewing. Those who do believe and study remote viewing want to converse with scientists but often do not want to talk with the public. Scientists do not want to converse with those who study remote viewing but the general public does want to learn about remote viewing. Is it a paradox or a failure of perception?

The question, "Is the glass half empty or half full?” demonstrates the way beliefs can be perceived in different ways. In the case of visual perception, some people can actually see the form of external stimuli in their mind's eye. Those who are not picture thinkers may not necessarily perceive changes in the same manner. Each person’s knowledge creates their own reality as much as the truth, because the human mind can only contemplate that to which it has been exposed.

Simply a first-person perspective and point of view....

"Every exit is an entry somewhere." - Tom Stoppard

SP-12 The Phillips Phenomenology

First, I want to thank all the writers on the last seed post - some excellent material folks and excellent mindblowing pictures too. I'd also like to recall these words from the first post made in this blog back in July:

The reason is to provide something not readily available to the world; - a discussion by a set group of invited people - about the implications of consciousness to humans and the world as a whole.



Nearly all of the invited people to write on this blog have already proven themselves, via the internet, to possess significant interest in the esoteric with a bent to `open-mindedness' to ideas in general. That is - while still possessing SIGNIFICANT opinions on nearly all paranormal subject manner. Many of those opinions will be supported by direct experiences or even investigations

So, with part of TCI's opening positioning statement above, I want to take an editors prerogative and delve into my absolutely personal writings about what I consider to be HUGE ideas - that I'd like our group of respective minds to respond to if possible. And, it would help to leave all pre-conceptions about EVERY fundamental idea behind when we begin; also, if possible, before beginning - I'd like you to vaguely consider in your mind one of the hottest ideas in renegade physics -- THAT TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

Now, I will not trot out the `common man' idea that `time is just a construct so that our minds can understand the reality our senses digest --- even IF that is entirely true. NO, this is going to go MUCH deeper if I am correct (I defend my ideas as only a theory of course.) Indeed, what I hope to show you in just a few words is that EVERYTHING IS A SPACE - EVERYTHING. Including `time'.

Also, at this time, I will not go into again `how' these ideas came into my head in the 1970's; but, if one explores my blogs enough one can find out more (or the links I provide). But, it isn't important - what is important is that the `ideas' you are about to read `came to me' - and at the time - seemingly - were coming into my head from somewhere else. Call that whatever you want to.

Anyway, dozens and dozens of pages of this material `came' to me over the course of a year or so - a time when I had to have `my notebook' close to me for when the `rushes of information' would `come'. The information also came in the form of one poem even and really can be reduced from dozens of pages to just several `concepts of phenomenology' - in the most basic fundamental sense.

Like other writers on phenomenology - like Sartre and Husserl - the Phillips Phenomenology consists of principals and works outward in a sense from there. And, while in my mind I construct differing ideas on the `structure' and flow of these ideas - I can easily form `structures' that allow any of the ideas to be the `most fundamental' - so hang onto your hats and minds. Remember, leave all your ideas at the door opening.

First, I guess, I will refer to my above blanket statement and cutting edge science - that TIME does not exist -- and my statement, along with this edge science - that everything, yes everything, is a SPACE. Not only that - is a `space' with ONE overriding characteristic BECAUSE IT IS A SPACE - and that is --- that the space --- IS --- NOT-ABLE-TO-BE.

`Your' space - is `counted' and counted once - as having a location and placement compared to other spaces. `Every' space you have - HAS EXACTLY `THAT' AS IT'S MAIN ATTRIBUTE. It's unique `moment' of space - as it were. THAT moment, with all its relationship to other spaces - in any form - is a moment of balance that reflects a NOT ABLE TO BE (ness).

Now, here's the BUT.

BUT, there are `different' types of `spaces' -- some of which -- seem `timelike'. And, some of which, perhaps all of which, have a direct connection to the phenomenology of `our space' that is NOT ABLE TO BE.

Such as the concept of `other spaces' - that are seemingly NOT OURS. That are NOT our space of not able to be(ness). As indeed, the world IS composed of more than us. More than ONE (not able to be). And, when two `real' not able to be's (as opposed to a memory or imagination for now) - yes, I'm talking about YOU and anything else from a book to a spouse - are in the `same perceptual space' - several other aspects of phenomenology `run off' of the not able to be (structure).

Perhaps at this `time' it would be best to broach the subject of `timelike spaces' that are REAL - ie: two real folks sitting in a room; and `timelike spaces' that are NOT REAL - like memories and imagination (but are real in an `other sense - can see how layered this all is I hope).

First, `immediately outside' of ones `space', ones body, - is the entire universe and all of it - to you - is `able-to-not-be'. ALL of IT. IT is the `timelike space for YOU' and YOU are included in the same manner for IT. And, as these NOT ABLE TO BE and ABLE TO NOT BE - `spaces' overlap, literally, `run off' of each other -- something happens. Actualization happens. The REAL happens. The Event happens that corresponds to the perception of the event.

And, that singular event has ONE attribute that is counted as real - an attribute best described as `NOT ABLE TO NOT BE' - the determined real. Our personal `world' is a `past' that `determines' our personal NOW Space. The space of the not able to not be.

Light and consciousness probably determine the `size' of this running off of the not able to not be - but IT is absolutely infinitesimal in it's attachment to everyNOT ABLE TO BE (like you and I).

And, that is because of this upswelling of that `timelike space' the `able to not be'. The able to not be upswells from both the past and the future. It includes all the past events AND unactualized events of the past - IT also includes the entire future. Including all the SPACEs you will ever perceive or have had the opportunity to perceive.

When described this way - The `space' that is timelike --- this `able to not be' space --- IS EVERYTHING EXCEPT one thing -- it is EVERYTHING except `the intentionalities' of your personal `not able to be'. Your now. My now. Your space. My space. Yes, the glimmer of freewill. The spec of freewill that `runs off' of your personal not able to be.

Looking at the world - the reality we see - in this manner - allows for much in the realm of `paranormal'. Indeed, looking at phenomenology in this manner - allows all kinds of `able to not be(s)' to BE in existence. Literally in a different AREA of space - a different description of what space is - compared to  the spaces of matter within the not able to be of real spaces (like you and I).

The `interactions' of these fundamental `concepts';which literally figure into our perceptions of real - produce this incredibly stable reality we seem to experience. Which we also know now due to science advances - breaks down as we get into smaller and smaller units. Things as we know - are NOT solid - but are comprised of MUCH MORE SPACE than `solid'. And, `time' breaks down in much the same way.

Finally, the man who wrote The End Of Time - Julian Barbour - suggests something along these lines as far as how reality gets from one `moment of space' to the next `moment of space' -- and that being that reality `follows a path of least resistence' that involves `picking the next moment' based on the criteria of the `best matching space with the least intrinsic difference'.

Lastly, the permutations of all this phenomenology when applied to imagination and memory and perception and consciousness are staggering. I look forward to all TCI's writers opinions on the matter and our reader base too.

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics

http:// whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com

http://theheavystuff.com/?cat=5

SP - 7 Phillips Tackles The Hawking Statement About Creation - God Linkage

First, where else on the internet can you find ON ONE WEBSITE - paranormalish bloggers writing on ONE subject ALL AT THE SAME TIME? Only on TCI as far as I know. The experiment continues; and, before my response - let me say that my response will be independent - and that I haven't read my writers previous offerings (except BD's - and that was days ago) yet - to preserve my own independent approach to this seed post `hot story' about Hawking's statement in the past week or so. So, here goes.

Since we are talking about creation - isn't EVERY second created? Are we - Hawking - really talking about `our universe' or the `real beginning' of `something'? Aren't we really to be considering how a phenomenology might come into being as much as anything? Aren't we really talking about the `potential to be' - a prior - period?

Certainly, we can't be talking about the `religious' Gods - that mankind has created - can we? WE, a race of beings living on a planet that didn't even exist, we are told, until roughly 8+ billion years after `the beginning of time'? A GOD that `resembles humans' we have been told to believe? Sounds just a bit like imagination at play IMO.

God, would be MUCH bigger in every manner than mankind could imagine - and almost certainly would look no more like mankind than looking like any other item that would exist - living or `dead' - `spirit' or `material'. Indeed, if one were strictly to `look' for God - and the concept that would represent such - especially the concept that would represent the `beginning of God' - one could only look to the Now of the Past.

The first Now.

A none existent `potential' - actualized. (And I don't mean the Big Bang.) A phenomenology structure began actualization.

While a phenomenology structure can imply `ethics' and even `morals' - as Existentialism claims - those are mankind ascribed to a blank phenomenology devoid of such IMO - but - a phenomenology not devoid of meaning or definition of what the phenomenology structure IS - is what I believe.

IS - a sum of zero - of negating representations - BEING - NOW.

Representations that we can - roughly - put into human words - as several of the early phenomenology thinkers such as Edmund Husserl have done. Thoughts, really, IMO, that could be ANY humans thoughts - back to the time of thinking humans - they are so fundamental. And, they are that way because they represent the concepts of time-space-and consciousness.

Could something as fundamental as Phenomenology Structure Establishing - BE GOD? ----- If first actions, or events matter - yes.

IMO, - (my Phillips Phenomenology) - `spaces' (all things represented as matter) - have one of the two `negating' representations - as part of it most fundamental `meaning' of being a `space'. To me, the ISness of `spaces' is `not-able-to-be'. (counted once). `Things' occur once - which gives them their realness - for that instant. This ISness, occurs, ONLY within the space itself.

Different `things' have their OWN unique `now-space' - that is NOT (timewise) shared with other spaces - except as `it' `runs off' of the `structure'. (We are `represented' by our lights bounce to `other things' that can perceive us. However, be clear about this, our light image of our now - the representation of us - has already occurred and takes `time' to travel to the perception field of another - our light IS the `set' and determined' PAST.

This Now-Past - is what I call the `Not-Able-To-Not-Be' - the set reality we `see' of the external perception structure. This shared reality of `neighboring spaces' - is what we call real. This is where part of our consciousness lies and where we need to direct our attention for survival.

Now, what NEGATES - the above? ----- The `time' concept - the `able- to- not- be' concept. `Something' that isn't `everything' - something - `that could occur again'! And, with that - the initial structure is set. And, knowledge (an event physics) would grow with a structure.

Perception FROM spaces - can make `sense' of the data - giving some advantage (perhaps) to `living spaces'. (One of my favorite thoughts is - if man can be considered nothing more than a collection of electrons, etc - show me which electrons are alive and which ones aren't.)

So, ultimately, - my comment is - there would be structure before creation `of the universe' (I'm assuming he is only referring to the observable portion - a minor amount of the total) - that defined what characteristics that things-spaces would BE.

Now, is that existence before creation thing God? --- my answer is above - and open to your interpretation. (However, I must render that it is possible that the reality we exist within could be an `artificial' creation.)

SP5 – Eric responding to Bruce and Rick’s comments

Thank you for your respective comments. Research in parapsychology opens many philosophical doors, and it would take quite a while to do a complete tour of them, as C.D. Broad noted many years ago. Bruce and Rick have pointed to some of the important ones. Bruce touched on the question of eternity, a concept that we can described but that we cannot fully comprehend. The potential cyclical, or self-referential, nature of reality is a way for us to make this more comprehensible by removing the linearity of time. Although this is something foreign to our mundane experience, a phenomenon like pre-cognition is also as old as shamanism, the first mystical system on Earth. Mystical experience was and is also part of mundane experience, except for us, children of the Enlightenment.

This leads me to think about mythology, another point touched by Bruce, not so much about the validity of the actual content of those stories, but rather at common structure of thought they carry. The paranormal and psi effects have been associated by some (and especially Carl Jung, and more recently George Hansen) to the archetype of the Trickster. In Jungian psychology, archetypes are thought patterns we all share, and the Trickster is about the ones related to misbehaviour when we BS ourselves, coming in the form of slip of tongue for instance. Although the Enlightenment brought many good and useful things, it also pushed away the mystical component of the human experience, and it is in this context that the paranormal plays the role of the Trickster, at the social level. In spite of our best efforts to create a rational world, “annoying” and “surprising” events like pre-cognition keep tricking us and reminding us of the mystical realm that we collectively, but unconsciously, know to be central to the human experience. Myths, like dreams, carry important messages, but they are requiring a serious dose of interpretation.

Rick, for his part, opened a number of philosophical doors, from Kant to Husserl to Sartre. They share this notion that reality is what we are making of it, with the means available to us (once again, none of them ever implied that reality is totally plastic, far from it). The strength of phenomenology, in my opinion, is that it is capable to listen to the Trickster because it accepts that the symbolic meanings we attribute to reality have “a life of their own,” i.e. meanings evolve over time and so our understanding of reality. The Trickster makes cracks in the routine of meanings and forces us to adapt, if we listen. This is a key issue for parapsychology. How we define psi, the central concept of the discipline, will have a direct impact on what we see as psi effects. The case of the parapsychological neglect of UFOs is one of the most ostentatious illustrations. (I would go as far as saying that the limited progress in 60-plus years of ufology is in great part due to this unwillingness to consider UFOs as psi effects, in spite of the Trickster archetype being identified, indirectly, in the writings of people like Vallée and Keel).

There was also a question about the Philip Experiment. It was a series of small group PK experiment conducted a few amateur parapsychologists in Toronto, Canada, in the early 1970s. Iris Owen and Margaret Sparrow published a book in 1976 entitled “Conjuring Up Philip: An adventure in psychokinesis”, which relates their story of creating a ghost called Philip that would make noise and eventually moving a table in ways similar to the 19th century spiritist séance did. The main difference was that the participants were fully aware that they were the ones producing the effect, not any non-human entity. Their feat was even showed on television and filmed as part of a third party documentary. Owen and Sparrow duplicated in a more ostentatious way similar experiences conducted by Kenneth Batcheldor in the 1950s and 1960s in the UK. What they showed is that collective psi is real and empirically demonstrable, and they also showed own a collective unconscious can be created, a necessary component for such psi effects to occur. Owen and Sparrow’s book is now hard to find, but there are a few available in used bookstores. It is becoming a collector’s item.

TCI - SP- 4 - Influences - Rick Phillips

Already, three of The C Influence writers have provided their essay about influences - please make sure to read each of the essays this week. Some of the best, most personal paranormal writing on the internet this week for sure. That said, I will be providing a slightly different approach to this weeks `seed idea’.



Two weeks and one day after my first `remembered thought/experience’ which happened on my third birthday - Albert Einstein died - and I remember my mother crying and saying he was the smartest man in the world. Somehow to me, it was a worrisome event.


In 1958, I remember going to the movies to see The Blob which instilled an interest in `alien life’ and that mankind might be threatened by such creatures. That said, I loved it - didn’t have nightmares or anything of that nature and saw all the great B film classics of that era as a kid. And, by the age of about 12 I was avidly awaiting my mothers subscription to Fantasy and Science Fiction (magazine soft cover) and also to it’s monthly column by Isaac Asimov. And, during those same years I remember my grandmother often saying whenever they mentioned UFO’s on TV or in the newspaper `oh I wish they would take me with them’.


Indeed, while growing up (before age 12 even) I remember the `ghost’ stories our family would sometimes tell around the kitchen table at a Christmas dinner or such - and the one I remember was about an old coal miner walking along the road up ahead of one of my relatives who was walking alone going home from the coal mines of PA. And, as my relative called out to the man walking ahead and as the relative ran up - the `miner’ vanished. And, it wasn’t long until our family got to experience the same.


Shortly after turning 12 my grandfather died - and at the time my mother and I lived with my grandparents (divorce). Not long after that my mother married her boyfriend and my grandmother got her own place. And, not a month or two later - in the empty attic room (fully finished) that they slept in - `backward footsteps’ started to pace the floor - multiple times a week. Heard by the three of us repeatedly (often when my stepfather went up they stopped before he even reached the top - and they never continued with anyone in the room). We moved not long after.


Now, since I was the proverbial `pre-teen-teen’ and that is what is often associated with Poltergeist Phenomena who is to say what was going on - I always felt he was looking for my grandmother. That said, I knew inherently that it was NOT me but knew of those stories - even then at the time the idea that teens were always involved in the PP was pretty commonplace.


This was (the ghost steps in the attic) pretty much the only paranormal events I was a participant in until my early 20’s. Indeed, my interest in `esoteric’ ideas didn’t blossom until 1973 when I discovered a book by Joseph Chilton Pearce called `The Crack In The Cosmic Egg’ - and for me - it literally was a crack that opened and has yet to fully close. (Eventually, I attended a lecture with another writer of TCI - J.S. Flower - in 1976 or so to see Pearce - and I asked him a question that I can still paraphrase till this very day - `How would you compare the controlled Lucid Dream states of CC with the mutual hypnosis states induced by Dr. Charles Tart?‘)


Indeed, because of that book - I couldn’t get my hands on or read fast enough any number of books (including Alan Watts, Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc) - but, most especially Carlos Castaneda. Especially the first book and especially the back of the book called The Structural Analysis - which laid out a Phenomenology for a Special Consensus reality which included what most folks would say paranormal events.


While the group into CC that year was significant (and we were reading more than the first book) - one close buddy of mine and I were VERY into The Structural Analysis. And, one time, just he and I went into a place well into the woods around Athens Ohio that the group of us had called the Power Spot. It was the ONLY time my buddy went and the only time I ever went with just one person as we normally went in groups. And, during that event, in which I had taken my `Heavy’ writings notebook with us, (that is how geeky I guess I was) - and my buddy started to almost DO a beckoning in a sense. He was almost in a trancelike state and was focusing on sounds only he could hear (saying out loud - do you hear that?) and when I answered and he opened his eyes - my notebook moved about 2-4 feet on its own accord. Something we both witnessed.


But, it was between 1973-1977 that I was discovered Ouspensky and then Gurdijeff (have read much Ouspensky) and


`The work’. However, concurrent to that - somehow, somewhere, words and concepts started to come to me - Phenomenology words and concepts - that I wrote down as they came to me (almost always in a stoned state). An entire Phenomenology - without ever encountering it until late 1975 after reading Kant, others and then eventually discovering Husserl and Sartre. Indeed, my Phenomenology (which I call the Phillips Phenomenology - it is Google able) is a near dead ringer for the basic ideas of Sartre. And, when I discovered Sartre - I realized I had been writing Phenomenology. And, like Duensing - I have never let my Husserl Book leave my side of my bed and I take it usually when traveling. I cannot suggest more highly `The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness’ by Husserl. (The book Man And Time - by J.B. Priestly was also influential to me.)


Then, `C’ Influence type of stuff - lost a bit of importance in early adulthood and all of those gigs. (A funny side story is also how J.S. Flower and I went to some `Work’ groups in 1976-77 or so - practicing the ideas for an hour or two - with a strange group of folks.) That said, I was still reading CC but now didn’t really believe his full tale - having read the DeMille books. However, one thing I knew to be TRUE - and that was CC’s Controlled Lucid Dreaming - of which I had about 10 or so experiences between 75-80. I could readily see that CLD was some new form of reality.


I’ve also had more paranormal experiences:


In 86 - again with J.S. Flower (and another person) we/I had a `missing time experience’ of the first degree - which I will describe when TCI focuses on that phenomena. Followed by my one and only UFO sighting in 1991 (close up) - and a telekinesis event (which we beckoned) (again with J.S. Flower) in about 2004 which I’ve described to Sally Rhine of the Rhine Institute. (I also had one possible Doppelganger event, like Duensing, but my doppelganger - if it was one - was only a minute or so `ahead’ of me - and went into the same retail location. I’ve described that in my blog The Heavy Stuff too.


These events, and specifically my UFO experience - once again got me to reading all I could find about UFO’s and other strange phenomena. But, in the 2000’s - only three books break thru above the rest for me - Julian Barbour’s - `The End of Time’ -- Lujan Matus’s book `The Art of Stalking Parallel Perception‘- and `Quantum Evolution’ by JohnJoe McFadden. (That said, I loved the 90’s book by Alan Guth `The Inflationary Universe’ - and Hunt For the Skinwalker).


Finally, all the above influences moved me to start my Phenomenology blog in 2006, my Squidoo presence as The AnomalyMan, and to start The Heavy Stuff blog too. In 2007, I started UDCC - Ufo Disclosure Countdown Clock and in late 2009 Barf Stew - and on all of these sites I provide occasional raw and new material.


Lastly, it was during a post on THS - not long ago - that J.S. Flower and Duensing and I had a very cool commenting session after my last post - that literally inspired The C Influence Blog to be set-up. And, hopefully, in some manner - TCI hopes to bring `ideas’ to the world to be discussed - BIG IDEAS - and we are all glad to have you along for the ride too.

The C Influence - Week One Highlights - And Other Perceptions Of Phillips

24 hours from now, The C Influence, will be a week old - as moderator of week one I'd like to provide my perceptions of TCI so far to the `authors' and to the limited early readers finding their way to TCI.

First, this will be the 11th post on the 7th day of the site - some folks would probably be jumping thru hoops - and, while not jumping thru hoops - it is a solid beginning and I would expect that it will not be hugely different than that in the near term. Not only that - the Phillips-Duensing focus at the very very beginning was appropriately moderated by posts by the majority of authorized authors of TCI - leaving only Lesley (who posted links to TCI) J.S. Flower and Jeff - not heard from `yet' - in this first week. 6 out of 9 is not only not bad - I'm pretty happy with that ratio. Indeed, if 6 out of 9 of us respond each week (still will be adding a few I'm sure) this blog will be a success.

I will talk about the posts themselves in a minute or two.

Next, you noticed the e-mail yesterday that brought your attention to the addition of site-meter to track the visitors to the site. And, after the addition - 24 `visitors' in about 16 hours -- even more importantly - at this link - you will see that at least 3 of our sites have links providing visitors (Yeah to Lesley, Rick, Bruceleeeowe users.) http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s41cinfluence&r=11 -- backlinks in the first week rocks.

In addition - you can see that I added a sidebar video that can also be found on B.D.'s sidebar - to me it not only is a winner - but is representative of what I would hope the thought level of this website could strive to attain. How logic will dissolve logic and certainty - to the idea we must embrace - uncertainty. How math will not `solve' the universe. ----------- So, I want all `authors' to consider similar YouTube videos - select videos - that we can bring to an intelligent audience interested in the biggest of ideas.

You will also note that the sidebar also now has our main websites/blogs - if you wish to change it - let me or Bruce know. More changes will be coming to the sidebar too - feedback will be appreciated.

Ok, the highlights (IMO) of week one:

GREAT `seed post' full of suggested theories based on real investigation of the paranormal - at least TWO - GREAT DIRECT responses to the `seed post' - at least ONE other GREAT post worthy of new `seed post' (R.Lee) for this week - and, mentions of new probe worthy ideas by Bruceleeeowe and Colucci - Visitors coming from multiple backlinks, and our first `follower'.

And, that is NOT a bad week folks. Congratulations.

Now, improvements - suggestions.

Since the positioning of this website is `discussion of a seed post' - it is very very important to keep that in mind when making a post -- a discussion post would include direct references, in some manner, to the seed post - even direct quotes from (as you saw me do this week with some of my posts) the seed post or comments made about it. NOW, that is NOT to stifle thoughts - as perhaps immediately after quoting such a passage `your thoughts' go in a completely different reaction -- that's cool, that is your reaction to a suggested idea from the seed post.

Also, while there is NO minimum length and EVERY post this week IMO had at least a twinge of what the website is about - developing thoughts into more than statements - is what will generate real discussion. Also, `answering' to comments that seem directed to ideas one has brought forth should continue and increase.

Finally, seed posts. I want everyone to consider the very interesting post that Regan made here this week to be the new seed post - http://thecinfluenceblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/regan-acualizes-esoteric-discussion.html --- now, as I see it - Regan raises these various paranormal issues with possible esoteric (hidden knowledge) answers ----------------1) are paranormal events coming `from' the otherside or are projections made by ourselves? 2) Investigated in location with ectoplasm and psychokinesis 3) Regan's family history of ghosts 4) electric feeling on stairs 5) the Trickster 6)"Between these experiences of us: human, mortal, mundane, and the afterlife, or extended consciousness, spirit, whatever terms we use, are veils that move quietly and softly between us. I suspect “they” on the other side are more aware of us than we are of them and are better at manipulating energies. Responding to our intents and expectations. Reflecting back to us what they want us to see, and what we think we want to see."7)"what we call ghosts, or spirits, exist. It's more complex than just dead people showing themselves occasionally as flimsy, vague shapes"

It's a full plate authors - take a serving for discussion.

Finally, about Lon's response to the week of initial discussions from this seed post he was so kind as to let TCI reprint - it was close to appropriate for the discussion it generated concerning the direct responses of two authors who were pretty theoretical in their response. Any response would have indeed needed a large timeframe devoted to a response - especially when responding to large and lengthy posts - especially when it is an on-going changing phenomena.

That said, to me, these were the best direct opinions, some possibly  with a smidgen of esoteric, responses, to our initial seed post and the issues and theories raised:

Concerning - Time Travel of Future Humans Into Now - Phillips, I think the key point I am making intellectually is this "We simply - CAN'T GO BACK - to realness." IMO.

Duensing, The essay that Lon wrote in "The Future Is Now" perhaps is a modern day narrative that may be confirmed in a surprising manner .....The concept is that knowledge in a non-literate culture, having descended from a literate state that had encountered a globally catastrophic "stop" of deconstruction that required the preservation of knowledge by verbal transmission.....If you take this conceptual basis for a body of myth as a "carrier" of knowledge whose preservation is paramount, these myths may be an intentional codex that are like the fragmented memories of a past by which we can travel backward in time. .......Could a global culture be wiped from the face of the Earth only to be traced by migration routes as a rebooting of a fragmented knowledge?

And, I responded to Bruces heavy words with this comment on a comment - here is how it `hit me' (meaning your words). ------ How about this - perhaps there is a `parallel knowledge' - that exists as a mechanism of possible actualization to the phenomenology we are all a member of. That `parallel knowledge' could appear to be humans from our future - but - really is - the possibility that our human consciousness is tapping into `other consciousnesses' that have had similar `stimulation' elsewhere and elsewhen.

So, a seed post that seemingly did generate esoteric discussion - theories about knowledge being a linchpin outside of the time-cone --- where else is that readily available?

Finally, enough is brought up in Regan's post to chew on and comment on - so please take the time to respond and feel free to comment on other discussions that stimulated your mind in some manner - that is the purpose here. Final ideas about seed one post are fine too.

R.P.