psychic abilities

[J. Stew]

this is something i'm just figuring out so bear with me.

psychic communication happens all the time. a kid 'knows' his mom is angry because he broke something by the glare she gives him, her hands on her hips, etc. she doesn't need to say anything for him to know he's about to be in trouble. a poker player reads his opposition and picks up clues about his holding from the way he moves his chips, the expression on his face etc. two ladies meet at barnes and noble to drink coffee and gossip. they gab away having omg-facial-expressions, use hand gestures, and instantly know where the other person is coming from.

this is all a form of psychic communciation correct? the various movements, expressions, postures, and vocal sounds add up to a story that eachother reads and agrees/disagrees with to various degrees right?

if this is pretty accurate then i have a couple of questions.

1. aren't ethics in general based upon the non-abuse of this power? for example, if you understand where a person is coming from, but they are 'dumb' to their own ability to see you nakedly, isn't care and compassion naturally there? and a follow up to that question . . . if you choose to manipulate that person for i don't know, sex, or to make them feel smaller than you, or make them your bitch in a deceptive way, would this be considered a person's ego which is making this choice? what i'm getting at is the question of, are humans naturally caring and compassionate when they understand themselves to their own depths therefore being able to see others to their depths. . . naturally. or maybe humans are just caring and compassionate to those who can't see as deeply as themselves and are competitive and games play'ey with people at their own 'level', though i don't know if level is the right word. blah, i ramble, just answer the first question if i'm spewing plz.

2. aren't intellectual arguments just pissing contests if the purpose of communication is for each person to properly understand where the other is coming from? Like with politics. there's a left and a right and a lot of talk about how we need to come to the middle but people seem to just talk about coming to agreement as if that would be the nice and proper thing to do while still going on thinking their way is right and failing to understand the meaning of understanding, or proper communication. i say proper but there seems to be various degrees of clarity in communication. i read a book called power vs. force by David Hawkins Phd, MD, and he listed in ascending order, im not sure what you would call them, resonations maybe. It goes like this, from lowest or weakest resonation to highest:

Shame 20
Guilt 30
Apathy 50
Grief 75
Fear 100
Desire 125
Anger 150
Pride 175
Courage 200
Neutrality 250
Willingness 310
Acceptance 350
Reason 400
Love 500
Joy 540
Peace 600
Enlightenment 700-1000

The numbers on the side represent a measurement system he came up with which is outlined in the book. I could reread it and post it if anyone is interested. anyways, so it seems 'proper' communication may be too broad and that defining what clear communication is or how to reach it depends on where a person's state of conciousness is, if i'm right in putting it in those terms.

so the question again is, aren't arguments pissing contests if there isn't an understanding that the purpose of communication is to understand eachother. and. . .

3. if you're psychic, can't you see the future? 'zen masters' from a long time ago talked about enlightened societies and it seems that's where we're headed with barriers being broken down, countries working together, global economy, information from around the world being immediately available on the internet, people seeing the connectedness of everything/sameness in everyone etc. if zen masters predicted enlightened societies long ago can't we do the same to see the future of say, the stock market? well people already do that, but understanding people's buying habits in terms of what level of consciousness they're at may give deeper insights. for instance, what are people buying who have a 'center of gravity' (i don't know how else to put it) at fear vs. someone at joy. what 'level' are most americans at? british people? chinese people? how do companies market towards these people? are they doing a good job or are they missing their mark? if they're missing their mark then how could they be doing better to attract their target customers? i mean, if you can figure that out, then you can investigate what the cutting edge ad. agencies are working on and see if that correlates with the target audience's buying habits, see which companies are hiring these ad agencies and you have malcom gladwell's tipping point, to a degree. that to me, in a way, is like predicting the future.

i suppose i'm trying to delve into what psychic abilities actually mean apart from the newagey i-had-a-spiritual-vision stereotype, though i don't underweight the genuinity of those experiences in their respective contexts.

anyways, if this is retardedly obvious you can berate me, otherwise any thoughts comments or question would be appreciated.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
this is all a form of psychic communciation correct? the various movements, expressions, postures, and vocal sounds add up to a story that eachother reads and agrees/disagrees with to various degrees right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Using morse code or seeing another person smile is not psychic in the slightest, any more than reading or hearing is. It is all a form of direct communication. The deaf aren't psychic.

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
this is all a form of psychic communciation correct? the various movements, expressions, postures, and vocal sounds add up to a story that eachother reads and agrees/disagrees with to various degrees right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to think of psychic communication as meaning mental telepathy. But I suppose you could say that all communication is psychic in origin - if what you're referring to is communicating what's in my mind (psyche) into another's.

[ QUOTE ]
what i'm getting at is the question of, are humans naturally caring and compassionate when they understand themselves to their own depths therefore being able to see others to their depths. . . naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on how you define, "naturally". I'd say we have a natural capacity to act this way, or it's in our nature to develop the capacity for empathy, but I'm not sure how much of it is nature vs. nurture. In other words, it's in our nature to be caring and compassionate, however that capacity needs a certain amount of nurturing to bring to fruition.

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe humans are just caring and compassionate to those who can't see as deeply as themselves and are competitive and games play'ey with people at their own 'level', though i don't know if level is the right word.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting idea. As a general rule parents are caring toward their children, but it can turn competitive. Just like a person is generally caring of his neighbor, but it can get competitive (keeping up with the Jones'). I think we have a natural competitive instinct, and it's just a question of how that competitiveness is channeled into various social dynamics.

[ QUOTE ]
aren't intellectual arguments just pissing contests if the purpose of communication is for each person to properly understand where the other is coming from?

…so the question again is, aren't arguments pissing contests if there isn't an understanding that the purpose of communication is to understand eachother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, some constructive dialog will occur, unless it's just a shouting match, but even when we're pounding our chests, communication is still occurring. If anything, you'll at least come to a better understanding of your position along with your adversary. We are somewhat territorial, and I think the defense of territory extends into our mental realm with the defense of ideas and beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
so it seems 'proper' communication may be too broad and that defining what clear communication is or how to reach it depends on where a person's state of conciousness is

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be missing a crucial point, but I can't see how communication plays anything other than an imperative role in the process. It seems like the overall objective of the communication plays the crucial role - whether I send a Valentine's Day card or point a gun at her, I'm still communicating. I haven't read the book you cited, so like I said, maybe I'm missing something - is he saying that it's the state I'm communicating from or the communication itself?

[ QUOTE ]
suppose i'm trying to delve into what psychic abilities actually mean apart from the newagey i-had-a-spiritual-vision stereotype, though i don't underweight the genuinity of those experiences in their respective contexts.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens all the time with science. Once we understand the underlying principles at work, it's not too difficult to imagine how they could play out in various scenarios. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I'm pretty sure the idea of radio transmission that Marconi developed came from the principles Hertz, Maxwell, et al, discovered.

So I guess if what you are saying is: if we know the state of a person(s) and had an understanding of the underlying principles of how that state operated/communicated, we could in a sense predict the future. In other words, principle precedes and/or predicts precedent or future events.

[m_the0ry]

I'm not really following your definition of 'psychic'.

I can see how body language is a form of nonverbal communication. But I don't really see how it can be abused. You can't manipulate someone into doing something with body language to any greater extent than you could with spoken language.

Most importantly though, I think a psychic ability has to be defined as having an intangible medium. I can see and write very intricate notes describing someone else's body language and how it conveys their thoughts. I couldn't write about how thoughts are being conveyed while sitting in a silent room with two proclaimed psychics.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess if what you are saying is: if we know the state of a person(s) and had an understanding of the underlying principles of how that state operated/communicated, we could in a sense predict the future. In other words, principle precedes and/or predicts precedent or future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, nicely put. it's another map at least, but this one would seem to be the map of spiritual development, or general orientations towards fulfillment, putting a context around meaning maybe. but it's just a map, not the territory as they say. kind of like a couple who know eachoter inside and out and are genuinely in love with eachother, or two friends who know exactly what eachother mean, or two coworkers who are working on something they both are passionate about. what they build togther through their love or friendship or mutual respect can't be easily defined in words, but the common path that these three situations head towards may be generally contexualized, it seems.

i'm not sure what scientific data is out to support this, i'd like to do a lot more research but in my limited understanding so far it seems that science tends to quantify what is quantifiable, and love, joy, enlightenment, and courage, shame and guilt for that matter, can't easily be quantified, so it's difficult for the science of today to wrap it's head around it.

why would it be good to scientifically understand this? i think so there could be some easily understood or clear communication about what it means to be human, what meaning means, how insight develops etc. which would elimate wars over differing values, if it can be seen that we're basically all made up of the same stuff and in a general way all pointing in the same direction. plus if people are generally happier, have some basic direction in their lives that feels meaningful, we can concentrate more of our efforts on raising the collective health/consciousness of the human race instead of wasting time in miscommunication, or at least lessen the degree of miscommunication. Thoughts?

[ QUOTE ]
I might be missing a crucial point, but I can't see how communication plays anything other than an imperative role in the process. It seems like the overall objective of the communication plays the crucial role - whether I send a Valentine's Day card or point a gun at her, I'm still communicating. I haven't read the book you cited, so like I said, maybe I'm missing something - is he saying that it's the state I'm communicating from or the communication itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

no i agree that communication is the essential piece. i guess what i'm getting at, is that it seems to me that there are varying levels of depth of communication dependent on the people that are conversing. for example, two soccer moms could be bitching about why patty's husband from down the street just took her to the bahamas and are jealous their husbands haven't done anything nice for them in a long time . . . while a group of soldiers in iraq could be outlining their strategy for an upcoming infiltration of a 'terrorist' camp and be operating on a different 'plane?' of conversation, like more 'in the moment' courageous, aware, ready for battle, sharper . . . while two enlightened zen masters could be taking a walk in the mountains just looking at the scenery, peaceful, no need to say much, yet at the same time encapsulating all the positive traits of courage, joy, love, reason having 'transcended' them, ready for battle, but seeing no reason to fight at the moment. i may be stretching the metaphor incorrectly but i think it makes sense in a way that understanding may not just be cut and dry, you get it or not, there can be different levels of understanding, layers of the onion etc. and some way to quantify it that meshes with math, philosophy, ethics, science in general. like reading a classic book once a year over the course of your life. you'll take away subtler and subtler things as you gain wisdom, how do you quantify, map that out, scientifically methodize that is what I'm asking.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really following your definition of 'psychic'.

I can see how body language is a form of nonverbal communication. But I don't really see how it can be abused. You can't manipulate someone into doing something with body language to any greater extent than you could with spoken language.

Most importantly though, I think a psychic ability has to be defined as having an intangible medium. I can see and write very intricate notes describing someone else's body language and how it conveys their thoughts. I couldn't write about how thoughts are being conveyed while sitting in a silent room with two proclaimed psychics.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, by psychic i mean instant recognition, seeing into another's mind, omniscience, and i'm trying to figure out if there is a developmental path to psychic abilities, and if that developmental path entails peeling away one's own 'delusions'/attachments/illusions about/of reality or if it's something else. not sure if my def. of psychic is accurate, doing cool stuff with your mind might be better.

In terms of abuse, I guess I'm talking about the ethics of power. The energy inherent in humans seems to be more fully tapped when a person has unconditioned love which i interpret as the non-abuse of the power that you already have. people who abuse other people seem like people that abuse themselves, and suck other people into their own delusional worlds rather than uplifting them. an example would be a sexually molesting uncle who's psycho-sexual intelligence is screwed up producing a feeling of 'lost-innocence' of which he tries to regain by sexually abusing his niece or something like that. and maybe i'm misconstruing things here. the uncle doesn't really have greater power over the niece. the niece is relatively more innocent, nakedley aware of reality, while the uncle has succumbed to the 'sufferings'/delusions to it/reality. so the uncle is grapsping at the power of the niece while the niece is unaware she even has it, innocent and thus attractive.

yeah but if you sit still and look at the 'psychic' while he/she sits still and doesn't say anything, if you look into eachothers eyes and have the imperturbable composure to not shy away, become embarrassed that you're looking at eachother nakedly, you can come to an understanding without saying anything no? maybe you see a slight nervous tick in their face and you interpret that as their discomfort, unease in the present to which you continue looking at them, unwavering while still clear and compassionate of which they respond by drawing upon courage to 'transcend' their own fears and insecurities and continue to look nakedly at you. There seems to be lots you could understand by reading your own interpretation of what is going on. like if you look innocently at what is going on, you can see how others are not looking innocently at things, how they judge and analyze their surrounding based on the fear-based walls and reactions to those walls they've accumulated over time and suffering. if you have the fortitude to continue to be sensitive while others look away or change the subject because they are uncomfortable, you develop a certain imperturbable composure while they remain in their sidetracked mind, ego?

in your example with the silent room, you couldn't see the exact thoughts that the psychic is thinking, but you could interpret those thoughts in terms of joy, shame, guilt, love, peace, courage etc. if their expressions are true to their feelings, if they are open enough to reveal something to you. and if they aren't, then the conversation is closed off. . . which is why i think some levels of energy are categorized as sucking or pulling down . . . shame, fear (retraction), anger (repressed fear) whereas love, courage, acceptance, joy are more uplifting at various degrees.

you're right tho, you can't see their thoughts, you can only see their own relationship to their thoughts, which is why i think humans developed the capacity for speech, to convey experience more clearly for clear communication or so it seems to me.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
2. aren't intellectual arguments just pissing contests if the purpose of communication is for each person to properly understand where the other is coming from? Like with politics. there's a left and a right and a lot of talk about how we need to come to the middle but people seem to just talk about coming to agreement as if that would be the nice and proper thing to do while still going on thinking their way is right and failing to understand the meaning of understanding, or proper communication. i say proper but there seems to be various degrees of clarity in communication. i read a book called power vs. force by David Hawkins Phd, MD, and he listed in ascending order, im not sure what you would call them, resonations maybe. It goes like this, from lowest or weakest resonation to highest:

Shame 20
Guilt 30
Apathy 50
Grief 75
Fear 100
Desire 125
Anger 150
Pride 175
Courage 200
Neutrality 250
Willingness 310
Acceptance 350
Reason 400
Love 500
Joy 540
Peace 600
Enlightenment 700-1000

The numbers on the side represent a measurement system he came up with which is outlined in the book. I could reread it and post it if anyone is interested. anyways, so it seems 'proper' communication may be too broad and that defining what clear communication is or how to reach it depends on where a person's state of conciousness is, if i'm right in putting it in those terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I'll avoid direct accusations that the conciousness measuing scale sounds like a cheap ripoff of some Scientology bullcrap, it should be noted, I think, that the Applied Kinesiology on which it is based has been tested and found to be "no more useful than random guessing".

Are arguments pissing contests? Depends who you're arguing with. I've had arguments where the other side simply wanted to "win" or seem the smartest, regardless of the outcome. And I've had arguments that quickly turned into exercises of compassion and listening.

I think any communication is an attempt to get someone to see or understand what you feel/think, right? Which is why I never get people who are so brief with what they say. It totally doesn't help facilitate communication if you don't get out what you mean. And I think that's where a lot of arguments, in relationships at least, come from.

And then there's drunken bar arguments which, in some cases, literally turn into pissing contests.

[J. Stew]

when i think of psychic i think of the spinal cord, brain and nervous system working together to create a resonation of sorts indicating whether or not something is life-giving or life-taking. like a natural bullshhht detector. if you are aware of your natural bullshhht detector and/or your natural bullshhhht detector is refined through 'worship' of yourself, being true to yourself etc. then you develop wisdom instead of delusion which makes natural recognition of new information more clearly 'good' or 'bad'. this i think leads to foresight because you can tell how a situation is going to work out, like knowing the ingredients that are going into a cake. if you've cooked for a long time you know how something is going to turn out, if people are going to like it etc. and cooking becomes an art. life artists or decent human beings who are true to themselves and how they feel develop similar foresight imo.

ok maybe i'm misusing the term psychic. what i am talking about is direct communication, seeing into another person's mind clearly. i think there are things that get in the way of seeing clearly and that it is nothing special to be able to clearly understand where a person is coming from. whether or not it is called psychic ok, direct perceiveing, yes. if you have the ability to directly perceive i think you can see the future.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think any communication is an attempt to get someone to see or understand what you feel/think, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't easily follow Stew and don't have the time right now to go over this thread in detail, but I just wanted to comment that this is definitely not always true. That's only one of many motivations for me and it's not always a relevant one.

[J. Stew]

hmm, i tend to agree with results found by Hawkins in that there are uplifting or higher qualities of 'being' and lower or down pulling qualities. for example, i live in denver and was walking to 7-11 w/ my gfriend on a sidestreet in the morning and came across two dude bums sucking eachothers dicks out in the open. when they stopped and looked up as we were walking by they had a look on their faces that was shame, embarrassment and 'devilish' enjoyment, like an awkward dirty smile. I thought that was sick. on the other hand when this guy i know who generally rules at life plays guitar i physically feel inspired. so on one side i feel sick on the other, inspired. when i compare that along with my own experience of depression/repressed anger i can see where he's going with it, but i'd like to hear your direct accusations too.

on pissing contests, i agree that if people close up, not much communication happens. what i'm investigating is the difference in those people that you have compassionate and engaged-listening talks with and those that are brief and closed-minded. i think there is a crucial difference between them and i think it has to do with what all religions and spiritual practices are pointing to. Open vs. closed, repressed vs. enlightened etc. . . and drunken bar arguments rule obv.

[evolvedForm]

I try never to go into an argument with the intent to win, although that is often hard to do. The goal of an argument should be to learn, otherwise it is nothing more than a pissing contest. Two conclusions follow: Do not argue with someone who can't teach you anything. Do not use lawyerly tactics to get the better of your opponent.

[J. Stew]

Nh

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
may be stretching the metaphor incorrectly but i think it makes sense in a way that understanding may not just be cut and dry, you get it or not, there can be different levels of understanding, layers of the onion etc. and some way to quantify it that meshes with math, philosophy, ethics, science in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going on the hierarchy of states you listed, with the exception of "reason" they're all emotion based, so you're going to have a difficult time presenting a "scientific" view, in my opinion. I'm not saying this to be negative, but people, as a rule are moved more by emotion than reason - that's really what the word "emotion" means: to stir up; excite to action; to cause to move.

To peel away the proverbial onion, I'll give you a rough sketch of how I see things and you can interpret as you like. In different versions of military basic training, you have a "boot" who's basically a combination of fear, desire and pride - and the objective is to turn those base emotions into the higher emotion of honor, or what your list called, courage. The operative word in the process is "desire". They ultimately want to be part of something that is for want of better words, "higher than self". Without that desire, nothing changes - there's no motive for growth or to endure the challenges that growth requires.

So the real question becomes, "how do you create desire?" And it's really that giving before you get type of mindset that needs to be present for desire to set in. A person literally has to go beyond what they know and allow their emotions to be stirred, by an emotion, to get out of what you referred to as the lower states.

I hate to be monotonous, but the question then becomes, "how do you stir-up desires?" I don't remember the exact details of the conversation, but I was talking about this issue to an old 1st Sergeant, and this was his basic take on it: his platoon was clearing a village in Vietnam and they separated the men, women, elderly, and children. A couple of the elderly women got up and stood in front of the children, followed by about half of the women. If you read between the lines, there's basically a group of innocent people separated from the guilty - but what's relevant is that there was a picture being painted and a story told, that's probably still being told, to everyone in that village. The easy story is one of fear, but the hard story is willingness or sacrifice by the ones who were singled out.

But the real message isn't what certain people did. It's that a story was told and a scenario set, so anyone who happened to be in a similar situation would know what to do, and know what they would do. Future generations relive that story; they play it out in their minds; they aspire to the ideals and examples that were set; and in a sense they experience those higher states.

So in my mind, that's how you peel the onion. You become courageous to match your ideals, then you act courageously to inspire others. You can substitute Courage for: Neutrality; Willingness; Acceptance; Reason; Love; Joy; Peace; or Enlightenment.

I guess what I'm saying is you can't convince people of anything - they'll ultimately have to convince themselves - but you can inspire people. But just like every step of the process, it's a step that's made alone. However, if they've seen you make it alone it may inspire them to do so - it only takes one Rosa Parks to get on the bus.

[J. Stew]

ty, perfect imo.