I’m sure that most, if not all of you, will have experienced the feeling of being looked at, only to turn around and discover that you actually were being. Or indeed have been looking at someone who has then turned around and looked right at you.
My question is a simple one: How is this ‘sensation’ possible?
Many of the world’s literary giants have used this scenario within their fiction: Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, JB Priestley, Aldous Huxley and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to name but a few - my dear friend Robert Rankin being another (albeit a more obscure one). I’m sure that HurlyBurly can reference many film examples on here too.
When I was lolling about in the pub on Wednesday, in between meetings, I was giving this whole question much consideration (see, even though I may frequent many an ale-house I am in fact still working!). It began when I was standing at the bar waiting for my pint of mead to be poured into yon silver tankard when I felt I was being stared at. Admittedly I often draw attention to myself owing to my monocle, exquisitely carved cane and silk top hat, but I turned around and there indeed was a young woman looking straight at me. Her eyes immediately averted once I had turned around, but once I had been served with my frothing tankard I ambled over to her table to talk to her.
As well as my question regarding just how this ‘sensation’ of being stared at works, I also wondered how, despite the eye contact lasting for seemingly just a fraction-of-a-fraction of a second, both the observer and the observed are equally fully aware of the interaction. For when I turned around and looked at her, she immediately averted her gaze but we BOTH knew that it had happened.
MY NEW THEORY: ."COLLAPSING THE CONSCIOUSNESS WAVE"
If we consider, for a moment, Niels Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' which states that all energy (including basic particles) exists as a wave-function, and only upon observation by a conscious being does this wave "collapse" and become a particle - Electrons, Light, Atoms etc all behave in this manner - then I suggest that Consciousness itself also behaves in this way. If Collective Consciousness (The Akashic Record, The Information Universe, Collective Daemonic Consciousness - there are so many descriptions of such) is indeed a wave-form then I suggest that we all, as conscious sentient beings, collapse that wave and create particles of Subjective Consciousness, which is, in effect, ourselves; our experiences and our empirical life. In essence, that we are all one Consciousness experiencing itself Subjectively.
As individual Subjective Consciousnesses we can then interact with each other (alternate subjective consciousnesses) forming Quantum Entanglements on the Objective Consciousness Field. These interactions can also include the perceptive field of consciousness which is where I think the answer to this ‘sensation’ of being stared at lies.
And interestingly, in my chat with the young woman in the pub I asked her how long she thought our eye contact had lasted, and she said she thought that it didn’t, as she had looked away as soon as I turned around, but she admitted that she did ‘know’ that I had seen her. Now to me, the eye contact between us WAS brief, but certainly longer than in her perceptive field, and I assert that this is further evidence for the temporal time delay between what we ‘see’ and what is presented to our consciousness.
I’d be interested to hear all of your experiences regarding ‘being stared at’ and your thoughts on my new theories behind the weirdness.
Here’s lookin’ at ya!
[for further reading on the scientific study behind such phenomena as I mention in my post I would suggest you find online the work of Rupert Sheldrake (specifically his paper “The Sense Of Being Stared At”), and the research of Richard Wiseman into being stared at on CCTV and Television.]
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
[ADDENDUM: I would like to add a massive personal THANK YOU, to everyone who has taken the time and effort to read, consider and comment on my theories - this post has become the perfect example of what we ITLADians can do by pulling together - well, this and Tony's Birthday Party last week obviously!! - But if you want to get the full experience of a marvellous development of comments then I'd suggest setting aside some quiet time, grabbing a beverage of your choice, and hitting that comments button below - wonderful, challenging, enlightening, funny and encouraging comments from everyone have helped developed my theory immeasurably (in fact one element of my theory only came to me while typing a response to a comment from Johar - thanks again JoJo) and thanks to every single one of the dear people who took the time to do so - and it ain't over yet, not the ways things are going!]
I have found a link online to the specific paper written by Rupert Sheldrake which is fantastic and well worth reading.
AND, as an exercise in research, I have just tried staring at my cat who was quite happily chomping through his lunch but who looked particularly perturbed when he turned around and looked at me with an expression which said “What?”
Consequently I’m going to consider the implications of my Consciousness Field Wave Collapse theory in terms of animal consciousness also.
What a fascinating post, and I do know well that sensation. And didn't Descartes in his soliloquy speak of "being perceived by a perceiver"? I cannot really add much to your fine post except to say that it casts an interesting light on such phenomenae and is quite illuminating as regards the quantum entanglement. Here's gazing at you, Darkish.
Oh great, you all get to read this post upon waking and I've just come home for a nap. The photo alone is enough to give me wicked dreams. It sent a shutter of anxiety through me when I first saw it. I even had to minimize the screen to type this comment because of the sensation of being stared at. Surely if this photograph can elicit the same dramatic response as the actual occurrence, doesn't that mean it's all in my mind? Another example of awareness lag?
Thank you, I try my best!
Descartes indeed was one of a list of Philosophers (Dark or otherwise) that have alluded to this phenomenon.
Indeed his Cogito of "I Think Therefore I Am" has been discussed and dissected in Sartrein terms in some of my comments on other posts recently to become "I Am Aware That I Think, Therefore I Am" and this can also be used when looking at the sensation of being stared at, as we become aware of the sensation and then present this awareness to our consciousness which makes us turn around.
And thank you for your comments regarding my Quantum Entanglement of Subjective Consciousness Particles theory, I think there is the nucleus of a book the size and depth of ITLAD in that alone.
"It sent a shutter of anxiety through me"
Was that a purposeful pun or a humourously Freudian one coming as it did in a sentence following the use of the word "photo"?
And yes, I have that effect on people sometimes !!
I've been reading some of the work of psychologist Richard Wiseman relating to the sense of being stared at via CCTV or Television and it is very interesting and falls very much into my theory of oneness within the universal consciousness.
What do you think Robin?
Karl; I think you can and ought and MUST write such a book as you have mentioned in your remarks. There is so much interest in this area now in any case. And ITLAD is indeed a perfect and beautiful segue and launch for such a text. Perhaps you & Tony could even co-author? I know it would be eagerly read by many philosophers who have ventured into quantum theory. . .
Many thanks for your kind words. It may interest you to know that Tony and I have discussed such plans and indeed something along those lines may well emerge soon.
Your words also remind me to say that my own theory allows Tony's CTF to fit perfectly within it. As, being individual subjective particles of consciousness existing within an objective consciousness field, our own phaneron is therefore, within itself, a complete universe of its own creation. Within our own consciousness ITLAD can then function effectively.
My theory can then assist the EITLAD (Evolution of ITLAD) to argue against the position that ITLAD is solipsistic.
The last three nights I have been listening to Sheldrake and visiting his website. This is quite a coincidence that you now raise this issue. (But we are getting used to that aren't we?)
I have always wondered how this happens since I was a kid, and I think it wonderful that Sheldrake has the courage to explore these ideas scientifically since so many "so-called" scientists want to give him a hard time about it. I find it odd that the history of scientific development has always been about individuals posing difficult and strange questions and yet when someone does it --scientifically -- they can still get ridiculed unfairly.
Sorry, off the soap box. I think the idea of the field is well worth exploring.
Ra from Ca;
I would say that I don't believe it, but of course I do believe it as the synchrondipities between us ITLADians no longer surprise me.
In fact it merely strengthens my theory of collective Daemonic consciousness. In occultic terms we call it an egregore.
And thank you re your comments on my field theory of consciousness.
Ruth, can you relate some of your own experiences around the sensation of being stared at here?
Ra; I think your comment was very astute, and to the purpose. And I am in agreement.
Karl; I do remember a rather odd incident of being stared at, and returning the gaze: It was up in Provincetown at a bar in 2001, and I was with my husband. The bartender met my eye and I had that odd "slowing down of time, like dense, warm air swirling" which Nietzsche speaks of. And it seemed to mark a moment in time where something was changing, or ending--which was sadly justified by later facts. But I have never forgotten it. Very difficult to put into words without sounding delusional, but it was as if he knew us on a deep level. . .
Hmmm!! Interesting you should relate feelings of a time dilation. This is what I alluded to in the case where once eye contact is made, one of the parties immediately (in their consciousness) averts their gaze but to the observing consciousness this moment of interraction seems longer.
And I also agree with you re Ruth's comments around the attitudes of some within the scientific arena to such questions as these.
If we didn't have theoreticists then we would have no theories.
I'm a theoreticist and I am proud!!!
And thank you for sharing your own experiences of the sensation of being stared at, I hope more of the bloggers will do similar.
It has happened quite a bit so it is hard to isolate one particular experience. But there is a feeling that you have, as if something is touching or pulling you. I do remember as a young person playing with the idea, trying to test it. For instance someone you know is walking ahead and you just keep staring at them and then you find that they seem to - for no reason - turn around and look at you.
Right, Karl was hoping for film refferences, instead he's going to get something he is probably sick and tired of. That's right kiddies, it's yet another Derren Brown refference!!! (Sorry)
But in one of his shows he displayed the power of this phenomenon. Going through sereval smaller excerises they finished with a random lady attemtping to make a woman in the street stop walking and turn around, just by staring at her from the window in the building above. When they caught up with the lady they asked her why she stopped. She said she thought she had forgotten something but it this may have been out of embarrassment based in the look on her face, she had no idea why she stopped dead in her tracks and turned around (and then proceeded to look up and in the direction of the window).
That's my quick post, i'll expand later. No films coming to mind at the moment though.
Ra from Ca;
Ruth, it's interesting isn't it? This feeling you get. That's why I titled the post "The 'Sensation' Of Being Stared At" as I don't consider it to be a sense as such, but a deeper feeling of connectivity, which I assert happens on the objective perception consciousness field.
Believe me Martin, Derren doesn't need an excuse to allow anyone to inflate his ego !!!
*shakes head at past rememberances of various parties at Bristol University!!*
Now, I could say something here regarding the, erm, presentation (shall we say) of the example you gave in the TV show but of course I won't
But I agree that this, and many other examples of such a "spooky action-at-a-distance" (to purloin an Einsteinian phrase for a second) are further fuel to my theory.
Thanks Martin, look forward to hearing more from you later Dear Boy!
Sheldrake is actually more than a theorist in that he is trying to set up experiments which is the really tough part, and should not be put down. I think the scientific establishment looks at it as we only have a certain amount of money and this isn't worth examining, but who knows what might grow out of this research? I was impressed with his love for nature that is alive and his aversion to studying only dead nature.
Here is a strange experience I had recently. Some of you know my son died. I have been pretty soggy faced as you might imagine. One day this cat shows up at our patio door, goes upstairs and under my son's bed. When I was particularly unhappy and crying it seemed to just show up. It now is living with us. I have always had bad allergic reactions to cats and avoided them but this one doesn't seem to bother me at all. (This could be because of the type?) I have also noticed that now if I cry too much and feel sorry for myself it starts acting very weird, kicking itself until I stop. I hope this isn't too strange for you.
RA; Well, it certainly is not too weird for the likes of me--LOL! how odd that you should have such an experience, as a cat came to me as well after my husband Andy's death, and when I was in the depths of grief. (She showed up at a picnic)--and I feel somehow that the kitty was "sent" by my husband, and now I feel that Jer has sent you a cat as well. We cannot mind what people might make of this, can we? All is fair game for taking comfort in grieving!!! Thank you for that, dear Ruth.
Interesting addition to my theory for consideration
I've not long since returned from completing the not often exhilarating task of grocery shopping, but before trudging home I decided to call for a coffee in the café, and not solely for the alliterative purpose.
In a marginally scientific study of those around me and the “Sensation Of Being Stared At” I found a marked difference in the responses between the sexes, by which I mean I seemed to be more easily able to make a female look up and at me while looking at her, than I could a man.
(Obviously if I was, myself, being watched doing this experimental observation, either in actuality or on CCTV then I was a) unaware of such and b) mindful that I would look like some kind of nutter!!).
Now, I wonder if there is a sense of Emotional Connectivity towards my theory and the Sensation Of Being Stared At.
I think the female side of humanity is far more attuned to the Emotional aspects of life than the male side.
It’s rather a sweeping generalisation I know, but I’ll give you a universal example and one that when I’ve told you, will change the way you see people every day for the rest of your life - and I’ll pose the example as a question:
Why Do Men On Mobile Phones Walk Around?
A Man, if receiving a mobile phone call whilst either sitting down or standing still will, on becoming aware of from whom the call is coming, will often immediately start walking around. A Woman, will not; she will remain seated or still and will often cross her legs or fold one arm under the other which is a self comforting gesture and a connectivity to emotion.
I suggest that men walk around because they have an emotional detachment, meaning they are not fully concentrating on the phone call emotionally and therefore their body feels the need to be active in other ways.
I wonder if this Emotional Connectivity can be adopted into my theory?
Comments welcomed from all.
As usual a thought provoking post and a nice timing too as I have just started reading Dean Radin's Entangled Minds so it all fits nicely together!
I am very interested in the Consciousness Field Wave Collapse theory and i am in agreement with the theory because it explains so much about what goes on beyond 'normal' communication. I think the daemon is waveform and is like an antennae, ahead of the eidolon in time, more aware and able to see more of what is going on around it. As waveform it interacts with daemon activity from everyone else. Therefore when one is being stared at the daemon picks up on it and filters it through to the eidolon who then becomes aware that they are being looked at. When the one being stared at turns and catches the eye of the one staring, I think there may be an element of time dilation. The one being stared at is acting on info from the daemon so their time perception is different(slower?) for a split second. They perceive that they have caught the eye of the one staring for longer whereas the one staring will say they averted their gaze before that. Maybe it is the starers eidolon that perceives this although the starer will acknowledge afterwards that they KNEW the person they were staring at saw them, a daemonic perception I feel.
So, is the eidolon the subjective consciousness and the daemon the objective consciousness?
Ok guys who's still awake and who has a clue what I've been rambling about. Please let me know if you understood any of that!!
Ra from Ca and Susan Marie;
WOW! I'm amazed at this Cat Syncronicity that has developed. I've just told my Cat, Charlie (who is Gay by the way) of your comments and he looked at me as if to say "Come on mate, work it out!!"
Hmmmm! Very Interesting, thank you both for your input, keep it coming, this is exactly how strong theories develop.
Awww, Charlie wants to help, Karl.
And Johar; I certainly like your idea about the daemon and eidolon and the whole sequence you have presented with regard to the gaze. Could not have said it better myself; in fact, could not have said it, period!
JoJo welcome to the discussions, I always like to induce some thought-forms and interesting you should mention Dean Radin and I'm sure you will enjoy "Entangled Minds" but I wonder if you've read his "The Conscious Universe", if so then I expect you can see why I ask and if not then I urge you to do so.
I agree with your relation of my Consciousness Field Wave Collapse theory to Tony's Daemon-Eidolon communications. The Eidolon exists with one eye on the past whereas the Daemon exists with one eye on the future.
Personally I would separate Daemonic perception from that of basic subjective consciousness. To explain, in your comment you said:
"when one is being stared at the daemon picks up on it and filters it through to the eidolon who then becomes aware that they are being looked at."
Now, I don't think this initial Sensation Of Being Stared At is Daemonically perceived, but is subjectively perceived from the Quantum Entanglement of the subjective consciousness particles (us) on the objective consciousness field.
(See why this theory requires a book! Try condensing ITLAD into one post !!!!!!!!)
Your question regarding: "is the eidolon the subjective consciousness and the daemon the objective consciousness?" is a useful one to help explain my theory in ITLADian terms but I wouldn't say yes specifically.
And rather disturbingly I remained fully conscious throughout your comment and fully in understanding of your thought-process. Which says something about my weirdness in itself.
Great comment JoJo, hope to hear more from you soon, and even some of your own experiences of The Sensation Of Being Stared At.
Hee Hee! Bless Him!
One wonders however if Charlie's desire to assist in my Darkest of Philosophising is purely altruistic or is in fact driven by a feline desire for the munchies bowl to be replenished with treats!
And I agree with your comments re the presentation of Johar's comparison, although I don't quite agree on the whole (see precious comment)
*gets up off chair resulting in Charlie expectantly looking towards the munchies box*
Interesting connection between the daemon and the wave.
Susan Marie: Wow thanks for sharing your cat story, and your kind response. I can stray from the main point but if you read Sheldrake, you will note that he has studied dogs knowing when their owners are coming home. Maybe we should propose cat experiments? I am aware of the story of the cat at an old people's home or clinic that would seemed to indicate when someone was about to die. There also has been studies done on cats identifying "out of body" experimenters at Duke University in 1973. Thanks again Susan Marie for the kindness and support.
Ra from Ca;
*smiling at the Freudian use of "I can stray from the main point" in relation to cat discussion!!*
Yes, Sheldrake's work with Dogs is interesting isn't it. Rather Pavlovian in origin but taken to new depths I feel.
I shall certainly look into building animal consciousness into my theory.
Thank you Ruth.
Yes, Ra; I had read either Sheldrake himself, or someone using his theory and work to make that point with regard to animals, in particular, dogs. (I remember it was a book I had picked up in 2003 at a library, entitled something such as "Dogs who Know their Masters are Coming Home and other Mysteries"--or something like it!) And I in turn thank you for your very supportive and kind comments. And I forgot to mention that one of my other cats, who was my husband's "baby", often stares at his chair as though seeing him. If only I could, too!
And Karl, please tell your sweet Charlie that he would be very welcome in my dear Provincetown, which is a gay enclave, teeming with cats both gay and straight.
Interesting! It could be infact that your cat, when looking at the chair your husband used to sit in, is seeing the residual energies for I'm sure I read somewhere only recently of some research into what animals 'see' in relation to human perception.
All cat owners know that their pets are likely to spend time staring into seeming nothingness with deep attention, and I often consider exactly what they see.
It has to be remembered of course that animal observation is very different to human observation, a purr-fect *groan* example of such is to point towards something. Every human will look to the direction in which you are pointing but an animal will simply look at your hand.
And Charlie will be pleased. I'm sure he will pull on his leather trousers and diamond encrusted collar in readiness.
Yes, Karl, you have made your point purrfectly, and without barking up the wrong tree *ugh*--I do notice that my very smart cat and my dog will in fact look to where I am pointing; the very fat and lazy cat merely stares at my hand, and very dully at that. Love him despite it.
Thank you my Dear Lady, I shall continue this animal related aspect of my theory with you off-blog as adopting my apparent Blog Moderator stance for a moment I would like to attempt to keep the remainder of the comments to my original post in the theme of human perception and the "Sensation Of Being Stared At"
Thank you for reigning me in.
Highly trained military personnel, amongst others I'm sure, have a heightened sense of awareness and they seem to be very aware when they are being observed so this ability to enhance the sense of being stared at can be learned can't it?
That is an excellent point, Johar, and would apply not only to learning but to simply long experience as well (for example, the seasoned detective, although he is generally the gazer, and not gazed upon).
Karl; Have you thought of this in relation to psychoanalysis and transference? Searles, Reik and others place great importance on the gaze of the analyst in therapeutic advances (in Searles' "Collected Papers on the CounterTransference" delves deeply into the gaze of the analyst quickening stages, advancing one past the Oedipal phase, etc. )-This seems to me to be entanglement indeed.
Good Question! I believe that it can be learned yes. I believe there are very few things that can't infact be learned, given the right teacher and pupil.
QUESTION: In your own experience of the Sensation Of Being Stared At, do you remember whether the one staring at you was predominantly of the same sex or of the opposite sex? (And the same applies to you staring at someone who then looked at you)
This relates to my comment made at 16:41 (above) relating to Emotional Connectivity within my theory.
I would welcome everyone's thoughts on this.
I would expect that you would expect me to say yes.
And in this instance I am going to.
For those unaware, Transference in Psychoanalysis is the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent or sibling, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the analyst.
Now, I agree with Susan Marie that there is a different kind of Quantum Entanglement going on in this specific relationship but one which fits within my theory.
Excellent reference my Dear Lady
RE - Men on mobile phones.
This is hysterical. I get a call i'm in the living room, by the end of it i could be either upstairs, downstairs, bedroom, in the garden. It's true!! Why do we do that? It's pacing personified!
My sixth sense with phone calls and text messages is pretty freaky aswell. I always reach into my pocket about 3 seconds before it goes off after hours of nothingness. I once attempted to explain to Tony aswell that i can physically feel if my laptop for example will work smoothly or if it's going to crash in some way. If it malfunctions you can actualy feel some sort of break in connection. Anyone else have a clue what i'm talking about?
Yes, Hurly; I experience all of the same and it feels as if there is a gaze in it all, doesn't it? *nervously because of Karl the Blog Moderator*
Karl; Seems to be opposite sex, except in the case of children.
QED (quod erat demonstrandum)
I initially wrote a paper entitled "Why Do Men On Mobile Phones Walk Around?" a few years ago now, and while the experience is known by many within Psychology few had made the link to Emotional Connectivity before I did.
I'm glad you found it humourous, it is startlingly accurate and will change the way you view the world every day.
As I asserted in answer to your question "Why do I do that", I suggest it is because, as a male, you have Emotional disconnection and your subconscious makes you walk (a physical act) to compensate.
Effeminancy in males or even males who are in touch with their feminine side (such as myself) do tend to have Emotional Connectivity to a degree but not as much as females in my experience.
And lastly, yes I can understand entirely what you mean by this brief premonition of some incoming call or electrical malfunction. I suggest that as the temporal time delay between empirical observation and conscious awareness can change then this is a prime example of that change occuring. You in essence, ARE subjectively aware of the coming event a good 3 or 4 seconds (I don't adhere too much to recent research which suggests this delay can be up to 10 seconds) ahead of being consciously aware.
What I would say, as balance however, is how many times do you have a similar feeling only to find there is no incoming call or that everything works fine?
Karl my good man, we must arrange another afternoon/evening of conversation and beverages. Let me know when you are next London Bound, i have 6 1/2 hours of toil to use at work aswell!
*removes stern Blog Moderator hat*
Interesting point regarding children. I think that Emotional Connectivity is androgynous in children (up to a certain age, the value of which is debatable!)
Good point though, thank you.
And as a Dear Lady I would very much expect most of the attention you draw to be masculine (and visa versa)
Yes indeed we must. Believe me, you've never been people-watching with anyone like me!!!!
I have a planned meeting in Camden in a couple of weeks but I will only be there for the day or two days maximum, I know I have a week scheduled for London in late May however, but I would hope we could get together before then. Leave it with me.
'Now, I don't think this initial Sensation Of Being Stared At is Daemonically perceived, but is subjectively perceived from the Quantum Entanglement of the subjective consciousness particles (us) on the objective consciousness field.'
Karl, What makes up the objective consciousness field? If it is particles in waveform that connects us all in entanglement is it 'attached' to anything? I don't think I'm explaining very well here. I understand the theory you present but I don't understand what makes up the objective consciousness field? Isn't it us as it is a form of consciousness? In which case isn't it attached to each of us in some way? So we perceive ourselves subjectively thus having our life experiences and we are also objectively consciously connected. Isn't this the reason for dyad of the eidolon and the daemon?
*reaches for the aspirin*
"Karl, What makes up the objective consciousness field? If it is particles in waveform that connects us all in entanglement is it 'attached' to anything?"
You are almost there JoJo, it is hard to define without first going into the Copenhagen Interpretation in some detail, so being aware that I know you to be someone who enjoys reading up on various reference points I would suggest you find online some explanations of Bohr's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Given that, imagine that all Consciousness (that being all objective consciousness relating to the Akashic Records and the Information Universe ideologies) exists as a waveform permeating all the universe at the same time, then our brains and our empirical input collapses that wave and creates individual subjective particles of consciousness.
Now, where is this consciousness field was your question? In essence the answer is Everywhere (objectively) and You (subjectively).
If we look at String Theory and M-Theory it supposes that everything exists on Membranes so it is possible that a Consciousness Field could also operate within this membrane or indeed be a membrane of its own, thereby allowing the Many Worlds Interpration of Quantum Mechanics to fit in with my theory.
[only just thought of that as I was typing it !!! See how valuable this type of development of theory can be? Thank You - I've just impressed myself, which happens too irregularly !!]
To address your final points you are bang on the money with what you say JoJo. Yes the Consciousness Field is a form of consciousness - it is collective consciousness! And it is very much attached to all of us, which is the very basis of my "Sensation Of Being Stared At" post. And you are so correct when you say "So we perceive ourselves subjectively thus having our life experiences and we are also objectively consciously connected"
Excellent comments JoJo, you impress me more than I just briefly impressed myself.
Thanks Karl, My poor little brain is getting to grips with this monumental stuff slowly!
I do wonder then that if we, as the conscious observer, collapse the waveform, what stops all of the waveforms from being collapsed due to the fact we are consciously participating in the universe. From this I wonder then if it is the reason we have the 2 hemispheres of our brain. One to make us subjective consciousness and the other to prevent to the total collapse of the waveforms, protecting the collective, (objective) consciousness and also protecting us (the subjective consciousness) from overload. It would explain why those with TLE and Schizophrenia perceive so much more and in such a different way than others. Could they be accessing more of the collective unconscious via the daemon (the doors much more open)and they are therefore collapsing more waveforms, leading to a subjective experience that the eidolon can't make sense of.
I also strongly believe that everything is a 2 way street. We need the universe to survive and the universe needs us to survive. I also think that's why you have 2 sides to everything. man/woman,yin/ yang,eidolon/daemon, micro/macro. It creates balance in all things.
Does that make any sense?
Thanks JoJo, how do you think I feel, I'm stuck with this kind of thinking all day!! And most of the night often as well!!
Your point regarding the two hemipsheres is very accurate I think. This relates to other comments I've made on other posts recently relating to the temporal time delay between empirical observation and conscious awareness. I indeed do think that a part of our consciousness has full awareness and presents only the important attributes to the other part of our consciousness to prevent overload and it is when this protective shield is penetrated that we have Mental Illnesses such as those living with Schizophrenia, Paranoia, Bipolarity and the like.
I'm deeply impressed that you made the connection so quickly. Tony does briefly touch on such in ITLAD but not to great depth, but then if every aspect was treated with the depth it could be then ITLAD would be War and Peace like in length (and a better read too, awful book is War and Peace, read Anna Karenina instead!!)
And your final point is the deeper ideology behind another Quantum theory, that being Supersymmetry.
Methinks we have another budding Quantum Physics enthusiast in JoJo!
*jumps for joy at not being one of the only ones anymore!!*
Interesting question just occurred to me:
How does the Sensation Of Being Stared At and my whole theory regarding the Consciousness Field and the Quantum Entanglement of our subjective consciousness particles outlined within this post sit with the study of Paranoia?
Can Paranoia be thusly considered as an increased susceptibility to these cross field interraction?
*aware that needs a lie down soon in a darkened room with a wet flannel across forehead - I'm cross examining myself!!!*
I bet you get through a lot of flannels Karl, my head is going to explode!
Almost as many as oversized gingham handkerchiefs!!
Oh now What can I say?? To awaken to e mails from Susan Marie telling me of this wondrous new Poste and an All Seeing Eye of The Greatest Beauty)!!(doesn't look too ale-clouded to ME!!)And then to try and take in the Brilliante Theory behind it....well I will tell the truth here,although it may cast me in an unfavourable light....*Deep Breath*
Years ago. whilst living in Cheshire, and with a husband who was sarcastic, volatile and violent at times, I took refuge in Books of Magic and The Occult. One afternoon he was outside in the garden in a chair facing the opposite direction,and I glared through the window (my intent was not good) and I was completely amazed when he swiftly turned around and looked back at me but still I had that feeling"It WORKS!!" Now I need the time to read and take in this new and wonderful theory, but I remember Meryl Streep said the wonderful thing about acting was the Empathy felt by the Audience, seemingly that we are all one and want the good guy to come out well etc!!Much fodder for thought here, Karl, and I thank you. And you have a cat!!! Now you have stepped up another notch in my Esteem, well you are nearly out of sight now anyway!!!And Susan Marie, please pass my lace handkerchief this instant!! with Smelling Saltes before I *faint to the floor*.Can I be the same person who Glared through Glass????
Thanke you, how I am I now supposed to re enter the *real* world with all of this to mull over?!!
Goodness Me!!! What a comment for me to read.
Firstly, thank you for sharing such personal detail to the blog (our off blog discussions are of course, not for public viewing!)
Being one very well versed in the Occultic realm I have been deeply aware of the specific type of 'staring' to which you refer.
Please do take the time to take in all that has been discussed here, and I hope we, and other bloggers, can add more to this development of my theory.
Your further words will be much appreciated and eagerly awaited by myself especially.
A huge THANK YOU from me for your time, consideration and extremely valued comments regarding my post and my theory.
I hope to hear more from all of you, and those who come to this post in the coming hours and days.
Karl; Jesamyn and I have been discussing this post further. What do you think of the affect of the gaze of the politician on the people, and their responsive gaze back? Right now in the U.S. this is seen greatly with Barack Obama. How do you view this regarding your theory? Also, the LACK of gaze from the mother--causation of complex in the the offspring. As in Patricia (I cannot remember her last name now_-Cartright?) in her novel, "The Talented Mr. Ripley"_-Ripley must BECOME that which he gazes upon, as the lack of gaze has left him bereft. Most profound analysis, and Searles writes on this.
WOW! What can I say? I am humbled that you and Jesamyn should discuss my thoughts and theories between yourselves, thank you both.
The collective ‘gaze’ as you call it is important to my theory. The will of the many can influence an outcome, I assert, by the effect of collective subjective consciousness within the consciousness field.
Indeed many of the world's greatest speakers and motivators seem to have this ability to harness this collective consciousness.
In the example of the distant Mother I would consider that the offspring would feel a detachment (emotional or otherwise) as a consequence and that such would manifest itself in the psychology of that child in adulthood.
Please share with me and the blog your knowledge of the writing of Searles in respect of this.
I'm fascinated to hear what you think.
I believe the author's name was Patricia Heywood (of the Ripley book). I also wanted to mention one other thing and I will address the Searles. What of the Kierkegaardian gaze that provokes (I must lay my hands on my books, I believe it is "Edifying Discourses". And Spinoza's "sub species eternitatus"--need help with my Latin, it's been too long.To view all under the aspect of eternity, a stance, and a gaze. ) As for Searles, in his "Collected Papers on the Counter Transference" he defends beautifully the gaze of the analyst as carrying a secret healing power. And yes, he would agree with the child carrying into adulthood this " bereft of the gaze" mode of being.
What WAS that movie where you could go in to a Virtual Library, touch a screen and have shelves of files appear all around you? It fascinated me, even though I cannot remember the name of it!!I think we are at A Caveman stage of our Evolution, and I think that the holograms are a way of the future.I vaguely remember reading a book entitled "Thoughts are Things". That is why I still believe Lucid Dreams are valid in that we can see it and make it the way we want it... but now I am off track... Karl, you and Tony, Susan Marie,and the other clever thinkers here will pave the way of the future. You must find a gauge to measure The Gaze and you will be evermore in the History Books...Anyone who has ever loved someone remembers The Gaze so well... all those Enchanted Ones gazing at each other while the world goes by!!!
Jesamyn; You are so right about the Gaze--who can ever forget it? And the eyes closed in the casket--to not gaze anymore! It is essential.
Karl; The Searle's gets very involved, and very sexual. He was very Freudian in his origins. I do not know how fully I should delve here. Karl, help!
BLIMEY! Now you're challenging me, keep it coming. I will address Kierkegaard and Spinoza shortly. But interesting to hear that Searles would agree with me in regards to the psychological effects of a Mother's detachment manifesting itself in adulthood.
*startles self that I could REALLY be onto something here*
To my, admittedly, limited knowledge of Searles (outside of a couple of his works which I have read) he argues, in a way that is fitting with my theory, that philosophy has been trapped within a false dichotomy: that on the one hand, the world consists of ‘nothing’ but objective particles in fields of force (whereas I suggest these particles are subjective), but that on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience (which I agree with). Dualists deny the first, but our current knowledge of physics makes their position seem absurdly unlikely, so philosophy, starting with behaviorists, has denied the second. But denying the second has led to endless problems and thus to endless revisions of behaviorism.
I’m hoping that my theory in conjunction with Tony’s CTF and ITLAD can stand as evidence towards the nature of behaviorism.
Doesn’t Searle simply say that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain, which is congruent with my theory?
I'm afraid I'm not the one to ask such a movie related question to. I would hope such as HurlyBurly could answer your question.
Lucid Dreaming, as we have discussed, I assert is our subjective consciousness in-tune with the objective consciousness field once our empiricism is depleted in sleep. In this state we are able to move and think and exist unfettered from the bounds of empirical everyday bombardment.
Wonderful comments, thank you.
KARL; I had not read your response yet when I added above. Yes, that is Searles, and I believe that a blenidng of philosophy, quantum theory, ITLAD/CTF, and your new idea would be dynamite, timely, wonderful. Wish I were not so tired, my brain is in a whirl. I can add more tomorrow. I do not have your stamina!
I certainly had no stamina yesterday when my whole system seemed to shut down (a symptom I experience often if in a depressive low phase of my Bipolarity, the highs manifesting themselves in these rivers of consciousness and hypergraphia)
Tomorrow I look forward then to more from you on Kierkegaard and Spinoza on my theory. But thank you again, my Dear Lady for such enlightening views.
Ok guys i think we have a record for the number of comments on one post *skips*
About 45 comments ago Jesamyn mentioned an incident where she stared at her husband with specific emotions and feelings and it peaked my interest. If we stare at someone with intentionality i.e we direct specific thoughts to them, is it more likely they will percive being stared at as opposed to just staring at someone in a semi daydream or people watching which I do a LOT!
I wonder if our intentionality affects the consciousness field?
"I wonder if our intentionality affects the consciousness field?"
Wonderful question: Personally I'd say a very strong yes, yes, yes!
Perhaps the 'Quantum Entanglements' we make with loved ones, family or close friends means they are even more 'in-tune' with us and with what the other is thinking, after all don't they say that some couples tend to finish each others............. sentences?
Biorhythms suggest this is because of a synchronicity in the Intellectual cycle, the I-Ching says something similar and there are many other cross-culture and cross-ideology examples of this.
I'm interested in not solely the potential of our individual affects on the consciousness field, but imagine the effect that collective subjective consciousness could have on it also!
KARL - DO YOU EVER SLEEP MAN!!!
Thanks for replying so quickly. It would go a long way to explaining why the belief in prayer is so strong. A mass of subjective consciousnesses directing their thoughts towards an outcome would presumably affect/ have an effect on the objective consciousness field?
I gotta look after poorly folk for the next 12 hours, this kind of cerebral stimulation is going cause a short circuit!!
On brief occasions yes!
Thank your for your valued input it is greatly appreciated.
Are you folks aware of the Global Consciousness Project, and if so how does that fit with your theories?
Link to site http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Is this a marathon?
I go away for five minutes for a well deserved birthday ale infusion and 14 zillion posts appear!
I see what you mean Karl about this being a meaningful post!
To the matter in hand:
Karl you ask HOW does this work?
The universal-spiritual law of Focus – energy flows where attention goes.
And also by implication, energy flows where intention and action goes too.
Whenever we make a connection with someone or something, we create an energetic connection. Hawaiians call this connection an ‘aka’ cord, made of energy stuff which we could choose to call ether.
Under normal circumstances, if we just see someone in the street then the connection will drop, causing disconnection. However, if for some reason we are irked by their behaviour, (eg, being cut up on the road) then we continue to send energy along the connection.
So someone who didn’t like their job at a checkout say, who resented the customers would find themselves very short of energy as they would be giving it all away!
This is why the Hawaiians recommend a process called Hooponopono to let go of your day, so that any ‘stuff’ that happened during the day is let go of and does not build up – the old drip, drip effect.
Its this constant build up of unresolved negative emotions that gives people their emotional baggage!
I believe (?) it’s a Buddhist teaching that in living lightly on the planet, they should avert their gaze from strangers for this very reason.
Now in order to increase your sensitivity to the subtle levels of energy present all around us, there is another technique called Hakalau, which means to focus and defocus at the same time. The more you practice this, the easier it becomes to ‘walk in both worlds’.
It feels very odd at first, almost like your brain is exploding (which it probably is)
Essentially it allows you to put your attention outside of you, which sounds easy until you think about how much time you spend on your own awareness going on inside your head!
An easy way to do this is to focus on a spot on the wall, and then pay attention to your peripheral vision, widening your awareness as you go, until you get a sense or feeling of what is all around you.
I use this technique all the time when I’m presenting, so that I can be looking at one part of the audience, and also be totally aware of what the rest of the audience is doing at the same time.
This is the same skill many women have of paying attention to many things at once, and is also how your girlfriend somehow magically ‘knows’ who you’ve been talking to even in a busy party with you in different rooms. *smile*
We tend to call this ‘women’s intuition’ although in fact it is a learnable skill, as described above, and can give you the weird feeling of having 360 degree awareness. These skills were incredibly important, to women to track children, and to men when out hunting.
*Phew* will have to go for a lie down, and will be back on the topic of intention and cursing/praying/spell casting after I’ve re-read this post!
RA: I used the link; that certainly looks like something that Karl and Tony should be involved in, if they are not already. Yes, it is turning into a marathon: So many avenues of thought to explore; a bit mind-boggling, but invigorating none the less.
Ra from Ca;
Hi Ruth, yes I am aware of the Global Consciousness Project but I know it better as the EGG project but then I like wordplay and portmanteaus especially.
Most of the research for the last 5 months or so towards the formulation of my theory has been within the individual subjective consciousness effects on other individual subjective consciousnesses, and EGG/GCP's work does lie mostly within the affect of collective subjective consciousness, which obviously my theory will need to include.
However, I do think that some of the EGG/GCP research is a tad flawed, in mathematical analysis, but is certainly of interest.
I'm sure that Tony is also aware of their work and maybe we should invite him to add his thoughts re the EGG/GCP within ITLAD.
Thank you again Ruth, and surely life its very self is a marathon and not a sprint!
And I'm reminded of the work of William James and his 'classic stages of a therory's development' postulate which basically says that all existingly acknowledged theory was initially 'attacked as absurd', then it was admitted to be possible but 'obvious and insignificant' and finally it was seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it.
Fuel for thought as ever from you Ruth, thank you.
Very interesting stuff
Happy to see you are still around. I am reading and taking in what everyone is saying. It is all very fascinating.
I first heard about this project through the radio program CBC Tapestry. You can download their radio shows. Should you be interested in the interview I am giving you the link: http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/012107.html
Thank you for your comments and I am startled that my own style of writing, and useage of specific words on this blog is permeating everyone's replies (ale-infused or otherwise), as very much exampled in your comment!!
I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery though, and interesting evidence towards subjective consciousness affecting other subjective consciousnesses in within non-visual stimulus.
Now, in the original post when I asked "How is this 'sensation' possible?" it was a rhetoric question used as a construct within the structure of the presentation of my theory!
It's interesting, but unsurprising, that you would find similar concepts to what I posit within the Hawaiian culture and I shall add these to my list of references to build into the finished thesis.
And finally: Interesting that you should mention the Buddhist teachings as I was only writing some additions to my full theory this morning along those lines, to wit:
"From the Buddhist Tibetan point of view, the main argument that establishes rebirth or recurrence is one based on a profound understanding of the continuity of mind. Where does consciousness come from? It cannot arise out of nowhere. A moment of consciousness cannot be produced without the moment of consciousness that immediately preceded it.
The Dalai Lama explains this complex process thus:
“The basis on which Buddhists accept the concept of rebirth is principally the continuity of consciousness.""
Collective Daemonic Consciousness perhaps, existing within a Universal Objective Consciousness Field, and we are all Subjective Particles of that Consciousness Wave, existing in Daemonically guided Eternal Returns.
Yeah, great fun ain't it???
*note to self, must get sleep*
Ra from Ca;
Thanks for the link to the interview and radio shows Ruth, I will check some of them out later.
I most certainly am interested, RA, and thank you! Am always happy to see you around as well. The volume of the material is overwhelming, but am also trying to sort it out in my own fashion. Once more, thanks.
I'm impressed by all of those who have spent time to help me put forward my new theory. I've lived with the cerebral headaches this whole thought-process causes for a long time now, as the germ of the idea grew to become the thesis I've now written. And all from Tony who I consider to be the 'Father of the Egregore'
And thank you especially, Dear Lady, for your on-blog and off-blog input.
KARL (Darkish one): I consider it an honor and a privilege. Nothing less than that.
In recent comments Aloha Gary talked of ‘energetic connections’, Susan Marie talked about ‘The Gaze’ and Ra from Ca talked of the ‘Mass Consciousness’:
I thought it might be of value to add the following Quantum Mechanics approach (which I ask you to consider with my theory in mind):
There is a Cosmic and Quantum ‘entanglement’ between every atom within our bodies and atoms that are light-years away in deepest space. Since all matter came from a single explosion, the Big Bang, in a very real sense the atoms of our body are linked with atoms on the other side of the universe in a Cosmic Quantum Web. Entangled particles are somewhat like twins, still joined by an umbilical cord (their wave function) which can be light-years across. What happens to one member automatically affects the other (as in the EPR paradox of Einstein-Podolsky and Rosen) and hence, knowledge concerning one particle can instantly reveal knowledge about its pair.
Entangled pairs act as if they were a single object, although they may be separated by a large distance. More precisely, since the wave functions of the particles in the Big Bang were once connected and coherent, their wave functions might still be partially connected billions of years later, so that disturbances in one part of the wave function can influence another distant part of that same wave function). Now, the Universe, when it was very young, was smaller than a subatomic particle. Therefore, perhaps the Universe itself has a wave function – The Universal Objective Consciousness Wave Function. Since electrons can exist in many states at the same time, and since the Universe was smaller than an electron once, perhaps the Universe also existed simultaneously in many states, described by the wave function.
This is a variation on the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Participatory Universe of John Wheeler (who sadly died only this week). But I assert that if indeed all Consciousness exists as a wave then the many particles of such (ie, ourselves) exist at the same time and are causing Quantum Entanglements with each other constantly, thus incorporating Gary’s ‘energetic connections’, Susan Marie’s ‘Gaze’ and Ruth’s ‘Mass Consciousness’
I’m repeating myself with this phrase but it is one of the most succinct I’ve formed to illustrate my theory: We are essentially all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
That is indeed a tangled web we are in. But your remarks are very clarifying, and coherent, and unifying. Thank you.
Thank you my Dear Lady, goodness knows I'm doing my best to keep it all together!
One question I would ask everyone to consider at this point is quite a simple one, but I'm aware the answer may not be!
Do you think I have the basis of a theory here that is a) Of interest and b) Within the realms of plausibility?
I for one think that with regard to bloggers here, the answer would seem to be "yes" to both. And I don't see why this would remain confined only to us. As can be seen with Tony's CTF theory, which resonates roundly with people from all walks of intellectual life, and continues to expand its influence.
Thank You, I will speed a signed first edition of the book to you by winged messenger (or UPS)
Thanks for speaking about entanglement. Your ideas are certainly a) of interest and b) within the realms of plausibility!
If there was a big bang it seems very clear to me all life is connected or entangled (most of the time, except when I get bouts of extreme alienation) and mihgt explain the more mysterious and seemingly spooky aspects in life.
Are you big thinkers (physicists, cosmolgists, philosphers) certain there was a big bang? The Degree of certainty about these theories is unclear to me.
Ra from Ca;
Thank you Ruth, for your answers to my question, I greatly appreciate it.
In life few things (if any) can be 'certain' but all the leading theories around Cosmology and Quantum Physics do lead to the conclusion that all did indeed begin from a Singularity which exploded. From whence said Singulairty itself originated is, of course, open to debate although if one accepts that Time itself is curved and potentially cyclical then such cause and effect arguements become redundant.
Einstein suggests that such an explosion could be one of many in a constantly expanding and contracting Universe, String Theory supporters and MWI enthusiasts suggest the Big Bang that we consider is just one of trillions that happen each second, and then you have the old Plato concept of the Prime Mover which brings the old God concept into the equation (but ITLAD being secular in concept, we shan't open that can of metaphysical worms!!!)
For many years in repeateable experiments, scientist are proving that our Universe is not just expanding but is accelerting in this expansion, so the logical reverse idea is that this expansion was once all condensed to a size smaller than the very fundamental paricles of subatomic phsysics themselves.
Indeed such is "The Doppler Effect", or the Doppler shift in wavelengths.
*makes mmmmeeeeeoooooooowww sound of car as it speeds past*
But, dragging it back to topic, it all forms the very basis of my theory, that considering EVERYTHING that we know to exist in our consciousness was once in oneness with itself then such as Quantum Entanglement and Consciousness should(!) be eternally linked.
BUT I echo your occasional bouts of extreme alientaion, and isolation oh to well.
I would add for those interested in these things that some great books to read alongside ITLAD are "ATOM" by Pierz Brozhny with Jim Al-Khalili, "THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR" by Marcus Chown and "THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE" by Brian Greene, and if one is feeling paticularly up for a brain warping experience, "THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL" by Stephen Hawking.
And for a deeply ITLADic book, "BEYOND THE OCCULT" by Colin Wilson.
After which some trashy fiction is required as cerebral balance!
Could you please summarise the last 83 comments, i only have 3 years left in my twenties...?
Succint enough for ya Martin mate?
If ITLAD is 394 pages, which itself is heavily edited from the original undiluted ITLAD (UITLAD) then it's been hard enough for me to condense this theory to just one post.
If you want the full experience and understanding of the idea I would genuinely suggest you take your time and read through ALL all the comments (with a beverage of your choosing) sometime, as they have been wonderful, challenging, enlightening, funny and have developed my theory immeasurably (in fact one element of my theory only came to me mid typing in a response to a comment from Johar)(thanks again JoJo) and thanks to every one of the dear people who took the time to do so.
I keeed sir...
I'm reading them now. Still unsure of my ways, i'm never actually out to offend, just to spread humour!
Karl; Thank you for listing these books. I have read some Colin Wilson and I know Tony had said that he gave a very favorable review of ITLAD, but I have not seen the text you mention. Thank you again!
Ra; I received your lovely email, and hope my reply has reached you this time?
I'll look forward to what a completely up to date HurlyBurly will say once you've fully caught up.
Keep it clean!!!!!
*reaches for Blog Moderator Hat in readiness, it's FABO, gold trip and little diamantes in it*
My influential Dear Lady, Thank You.
Colin Wilson also wrote "The Occult" but "Beyond The Occult" covers everything from our mutual love of Gurdijeff And Ouspensky to Dream States, Consciousness and Modern Science.
Oh and, of course Colin Wilson's "The Outsider" which alongside Albert Camus' "The Outsider" are two deeply meaningful books towards an understanding of me and I relate to these two books very much.
A lot can be said with a look, a lot of communication is non-verbal, Telepathy takes place in many forms.
I believe i recall you saying something on the day we met about the world being one great big experience that is filtered out into different eyes and ears (maybe you said something similar or nothing or the sort, eiher way i'm running with it!!) A lot of information is simply obtained in strange ways, i find myself convinced that i know a lot about certain people i have never met, quite often celebrities, based on certain things they may have said or done that gives insight to simlar thoughts or experiences we may have had. We sometimes pick up on a lot more that we realise, we experience certain things in life and through some sort of unknown wisdom we realise we are not alone in what we have learned or experienced
"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating" - Joel - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind ;0) (smooth)
The eyes are the window to the soul indeed. Actors who command the screen best generally have very distinctive and sympathetic eyes e.g Nicholas Cage.
(At this point should i mention that i recall some more Derren Brown material about immitating peoples body movements in public to get a desired reaction!!??)
This is, of course all about the rhythm of life, waves connect the observer and the observed as you mentioned. The abilty to do this as a skill i think requires the same beliefs as the mind-reading. Confidence and the abilty to believe in what you are doing to the point that you begin to feel it. Maybe i shouldn't type this while i watch the Matrix Revolutions???
You know what? I take pride in my disjointed ramblings, within there somewhere is a coherent observation about the unexeplainable. If you're explaining the unexplainable well, you're not doing it right are you...?
And well you should, Hurly. There is indeed a secret order contained in your chaotic ramblings; I agree with much of what you say, and it is akin to my own experience. And your film references are quite important and relevant.
Indeed a lot can be said with a look, remember those blokes in the pub!!!! Collective DUMBSTRUCK Consciousness!!!! Hee Hee !!!
And MOST communication is non-verbal as those of us within the teaching of Body Language and NLP techniques can show you easily.
"One great big experience that is filtered out into different eyes and ears", now, this doesn't sound much like me does it? I may have said that we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, that there is no such thing as death, life in merely a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves (which does sound a bit more like my kind of pub ramble).
Despite you bringing dear old Dezza back into the discussion it does allow me the opportunity to agree with what he said in this instance, and my own radio appearances releted to what I call Auto-Suggestion - The purposeful use of positive body language to gain empathy and a rapport with someone (ie, at a Job Interview, with a Bank Manager or for the unscrupulous amongst you, the opposite sex). And this is indeed all about creating a quantum entaglement between the particle of consciousness that is you and that which is them.
Good Books for you to read Dear Boy are "PURE EFFECT" by Derren Figaro Brown *smile*, "13 STEPS TO MENTALISM" by Tony Corrinds, "PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL THOUGHT READING" and "MUSCLE READING AND THE IDEOMOTOR RESPONSE REVEALED" by Banachek and "THE STRUCTURE OF MAGIC" by Richard Bandler & John Grinder.
Plus I'll teach you some of the 'tells' myself when we can next loll about in a pub in the capital to use in your Poker games and some interesting theories of mine around deliberately negative body language and when it is VERY effective in 'bluff' spotting.
Good points though Martin, thanks for your input.
And I am reminded of the feelings I get when teaching my Body Language group, my sense of awareness magnifies to such a degree that I can be talking and looking at one person and see what everyone else is doing at the same time, it's like switching your TV from 4:3 to 16:9 ratio, from square to widescreen.
I bought Pure Effect about 5 or 6 years ago, not as good as his second book. The only intresting theory was regarding anchoring, nlp and mind-reading. The rest was card tricks and things i didn't have much use for or interest in. His second book was very enjoyable though.
I promise when your Camden tales are released against your will i'll go onto Derren's website and talk about them just to annoy him.
Flirting across a room with someone is a tricky skill to learn that is aided with humour, some of us have more time to practice it with bar maids though don't we...? ;0)
Derren's first book was "Pure Effect" on direct mindreading and magical artistry. His second book was "Absolute Magic" A model for powerful close-up performance, and of course we know how good his "Tricks Of The Mind" was although he rather slates most hypnotists! And my own experiences with them haven't been that impressive.
Martin, this shouldn't be spoken here, as it linkining two seperate areas of my gestalt existentisliasm, and I like to keep them all seperate BUT I will say that DB IS in one as himself so it would be his ego being inflated again. *smile*
Lovely fella though, beautiful parrot!!!
Jesamyn has a story to put to on that last coment of yours. I hope she does so.
*Smile and waved daffodils*
I didn't want to stay on that particular topic sir, i merely elaborated as you mentioned the book Pure Effect which i had refferenced quite a bit to you recently.
I am happy to stay on topic. Meanwhile i keep associating the picture from this thread with A Clockwork Orange and Panic! at the disco. Going to be late to bed tonight i think, just like the good ol' days!
In that case, consdier this instead:
Can you see how I imagine all consciousness to be wave of energy (within this energy is everything that has every has happened and ever will happen), once we, by becoming empirically observant "collapse" the wave function and create Particles of Consciousness (who we perceive to be I).
Do you agree or not?
I AM going to bed (YAAAYYYY come the cries) so I invite you to add your comments here for when I awake and I will answer each occurtingly.
Karl; I had no idea that you taught a body language group?? What does this entail? Where do you teach it? I am dying to hear about it. . . And when you speak of us as collapsing the wave function and creating particles of consciousness, perceived to be I, is this a sort of kinship with the creative capacity of God? (i.e., as Jesus said, "Is it not written, ye are gods?"). . .
So many Books,so little Time...Thank you for letting me know that there are Fellowe Booke Enthusiasts and Thinkers still out there...Yes I have also read Colin Wilson (mmmm maybe NOT the latest one!!) Hurly what WAS that Virtual Library Film... please!!!???
Karl.... what can I contribute?? Did you mean Barmaids etc or Toucans??? Please Elaborate!!!
"Entangled particles are somewhat like twins, still joined by an umbilical cord (their wave function) which can be light-years across."
This comment above all others has stopped me in my tracks.
Whenever I have discussed belief, spirituality or religion with anyone and they have asked for my opinion it has gone like this: I believe that we all have umbilical like energy coming from us which joins to a giant placenta, connects us all and contains everything!!(at this point I usually get laughed at, ignored or given very odd stares!)
Thank god I'm here now!
Extremely simplistic but as I haven't talked about it for a long time this one comment bought it all flooding back!!
Get on a do you book, hun, if you ever needed any validation, the fact that we are at 100 posts and still going strong should do it!
Hee!Hee! Believe me, my Dear Lady, even knowing me for many years doesn't stop me occassionally being able to through something new that I 'do' into the equation.
As to your later point, I would be happy to give you my thoughts off-blog, but as ITLAD is essentially secular in approach and scientific in basis, I don't think this blog is the correct forum for Theological debates, but I have some interesting ideas to share with you so, we'll talk on email, if you'd like that.
Thank You again Susan Marie.
Hee Hee! And most of those books discuss Time as well, it's the perfect Irony (well, a better example than those simply unfortunate occurances that Alanis Morrissette sang about in "Ironic!!! - surely "A traffic jam when you're already late isn't Ironic, unless your're a town-planner on the way to a meeting to discuss whether you were hasty in declaring there was no traffic congestion problems in your town!!
But, anyway, dragging back to topic, I have emailed HurlyBurly to ask him to see if he knows the film you speak of Jesamyn, if anyone does then it will be he.
And you have contributed MUCH Jesamyn, already very very much, thank you dearly,
*Smiles at being asked to elaborate, most people don't dare tell me that for fear of the consequences!!!*
Morning JoJo: I'm glad I can, even from a distance, manage to get you to stop and think for a few minutes.
Very interesting imagery you have there, and allowing the Theology Truck to just pass by for a second, I hope you can see that my theory is very much in agreement with your 'energy placenta' imagery.
(Morning everyone, hope you are enjoying your breakfast !!!!)
How dare anyone laugh at JoJo, give me their names at once!!!
*laughs at pathetic attempt at machismo*
And I'm often given very odd stares when I've finished talking, which kind of bring us full circle in a nicely philosophical way.
What a simply amazing read. I knew that reading through this posting and its comments would take some time so I took my laptop logged onto my wireless set-up (I usually use my PC in my study because it is faster)and joined my wife Penny, cooking samosas (and other yummy things) in the kitchen. After nearly an hour of gasps, laughter and 'wow' comments I have reached the end. With the smell of garam masala now wafting around me I am ready to add my comments:
KARL: Simply brilliant idea and theory explained very effectively. I am convinced that you have a fascinating potential book here. We need to discusss this off-blog but I am sure that I can help with this.
SUSAN-MARIE: I am really interested in the source of your Neitszche coment about time "slowing down like desnes warm air". Given his other itladian predilictions this comment is fascinating. From wence?
By the way the writer of Ripley is Patricia Highsmith - one of the few fiction writers that I regularly read. As HB is probably aware not only was her writing responsible for the wonderful "Ripley" movies (Matt Damon a much better Ripley in my mind than John Malcovich - who in turn appeared in another great itladian movie "Being John Malcovich".
HB: Your comment with regard to having only three years of your twenties .. absolute classic and timed to perfection.
JOHAR: Glad you are enjoying Dean Radin. As you may be aware he knows of us and our little site here. Maybe one day he will join in. If nothing else this sereies of postings cannot but impress him. Are you aware of the writings of Eugene Halliday? He suggested a simply amazing theory with regard to collective consciousness and the Field. Indeed I am giving a lecture to a group called ISHVAL next week near Manchester. ISHVAL are an organisation that keeps Halliday's ideas alive. They feel that Itlad and Halliday have many overlapping elements.
JESAMYN: Was the movie you are thinking of "Bruce Almighty"? In which case we have yet another reference to Jim Carrey.
ALL: Two other individuals referenced who are on the periphery of this blog and itlad are Marcus Chown and Colin Wilson. I know that they both have logged onto this site in the past. I will drop them both emails to let them know that they have been referenced.
FINALLY: This posting has been simply fantastic. It shows just how powerfull, mind expanding and FUN itlad is. Could this be the time that we all let other friends know about this? As an example this one simply cannot be beaten. I for one will be sending out a few emails later to friends to say "look what you are missing".
Karl has asked if I can find a way to place this at the top of the blog again. I will see what I can do.
We'll talk more off-blog, I'm sure we can develop something Extraordinary *wink*
And your kitchen mixture of empirical wonderment reminds me of that poem I told you I had written to help save dear old Camden Market from being redeveloped, and especially your "Synaesthesia Seizure" of which you have just beautifully relayed!
(quoting from my own poetry seems rather odd!!!!!!!)
*save a samosa for me if Penny will be so kind*
And it is being whilst being mindful of your lecture to the Paranormal Week on Tuesday and our visit to ISHVAL at the weekend that I wonder if keeping such a wonderful example of ITLADians ability to develop a theory should remain in a position of some prominence, at least until after the events.
TONY; Yes, Nietzsche describes such feelings in a number of places: journals, letters to Peter Gast , and in "Ecce Homo", the section on inspiration I believe. James in a letter to his wife describes same "daemonic" inspiration, as does Charlotte Bronte in her journals. Very similar feelings and impressions. And thank you for setting me straight on her name, you say, Highsmith? I cannot think as I used to--very foggy.
Adressing Nietzsche briefly in relation to my theory, do you think his ideology of the Eternal Return lay within the same subjective consciousness or in the recurrences of existence within alternate consciousnesses?????
I would have to ponder that, but off the cuff I would say in both. It lies within both.
Thank You, I shall await the results of your ponderances with eagerness.
Personally I think Nietzsche would have devoured Tony's book and ITLAD/CTF in total and would have loved the implications within his own philosophy.
As I said before, I think ITLAD fits within my own theory like a hand in a glove, so I look forward to hearing more from you later my Dear Lady.
Marcus Chown... if you are out there marvelous man, i loved the universe next door. (It was exactly as good as Tony's book...
:0) that makes everything ok, and everyone is happy!)
Karl, we may have to change your screen name to Frankenstein! After some thought i can't help but keep thinking of the double slit experiment and the observer/obsereved nature of our reality that dominates so much of what we know of the world. We know what we see is arguably an illusion, that it's all waves of light. Is this then, why a focused and concentrated connection between point A - The Observer and point B - The Observed will leave the observed aware of the fact that it's being watched, in social situations aswell as when dealing with protons and other tiny things? Surely there is no distinction? Everything is interconnected and this is no exception.
It's amazing how much of what i read and watch lately keeps bringing me back to a main argument of Tony's book, that being that, we bring things into existance by observing them.
1. The Double Slit experiment
2. The Hawthorne effect
Here's an interesting study i found.
Why do sceptics always report negative results?
Most people have experienced the sensation that someone is staring at them, only to turn around and find that indeed, someone's gaze is burning a hole in the back of their head. The phenomenon has led some to believe that people must have a sixth sense that allows them to know they are being stared at. However, when experimenters have investigated whether the phenomenon is a real one, the results seem to depend on who is doing the research. For example, the sceptic Richard Wiseman always reports negative results whereas the believer in psychic ability Marilyn Schlitz always reports positive results. So Wiseman and Schlitz decided to do some research together to find out what was going on.
The pair conducted research that involved recording the skin conductance (a measure of emotional arousal) of people who were sometimes stared at, via a live video feed, by an experimenter sat in another room. In earlier work, they found that if Marilyn Shlitz, the psychic believer, did the greeting of participants and did the staring, then participants tended to show more emotional arousal when they were being stared at. However, when Richard Wiseman, the sceptic, did the greeting and staring, evidence for the 'sense of being stared at' was not found.
In the current experiment at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in America, where Schlitz is based, the two researchers broke things down still further to isolate the source of their earlier inconsistent findings. This time, Wiseman sometimes did the greeting while Schlitz did the staring, and vice versa. However, none of these manipulations made any difference - participants didn't show more emotional arousal when they were being stared at regardless of who did the greeting or staring. Schlitz's rapport with participants and expectations of success, which were also measured, also had no association with the outcome.
The researchers concluded that the latest findings have failed to explain their earlier inconsistent results, but they said "this series of experiments demonstrates that it is possible to conduct fruitful collaborative research involving both sceptics and proponents and it offers the potential of a more productive route than more traditional forms of sceptic-proponent debate".
They added "It is hoped that the studies described here will encourage researchers working in other controversial areas (e.g. the role of trance in hypnosis, false memory syndrome, unorthodox forms of psychotherapy and complimentary and alternative medicine) to engage in similar joint projects and that such work will help advance our understanding of the phenomena underlying these controversies".
Schiltz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C. & Radin, D. (2006). Of two minds: Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology. In Press, DOI:1348/000712605X80704.
Nice of you to contribute !!!
Regarding Marcus Chown, if you have read "The Universe Next Door" then I would also suggest you read his "Afterglow Of Creation" and "Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You" (although in my opinion Tony did a better job explaining the basics of Quantum Mechanics, but Chown does, in the second half of the book, delve deeper and it does end up being a great read).
Frankenstein?? Are you suggesting I have created a monster?? As that was the name of the creator and not the being of course!!!
No-one changes my name, except for me (which admittedly I do often).
If I could just play Blog Moderator though for a second Martin, can you please place a link to any online references that you wish to quote directly from (it's a copyright thing) and also keeps comments to a reasonable length !!
*removes gold trimmed Blog Mod hat*
(It's a 'peaked' cap, obviously)
Now, I would love to address your point but I can't actually see one!!! Other than you seem to agree with my theory, so thank you Martin.
Interestingly I will add this: While considering my theory I did consider the implications of it on Everett's MWI and have come up with a staggering solution:
Imagine that indeed there are Many Alternate World's out there - everybody we know!!!!!!!
It is only in our own subjective consciousness that things are "as they are" to us. In effect the Multiverse is all around us, we are all one individual universe of our own subjectively observed making. The Parallel Worlds are actually the Parallel Lives that others live with us as separate-consciously observed particles on the objective consciousness wave. So things are only as you observe them to be, in your own subjective consciousness.
That my friends is a TIWIGI moment, so named after a subconscious catchprase that Tony often uses during his lectures or his posts and comments:
TIWIGI being This Is Where It Gets Interestng !!!
Oh and on further thinking about it I think your Sceptics research you found is similar in thesis to a question I asked in comments (somewhere above) regarding how the Sensation of Being Stared At affects Paranoia!!!
1. Oh really was Frankenstein the creator? Yes, Karl, that was what i was implying... it's almost as if you knew that though. ;0)
2. I gave a clear refference at the bottom, the reason i didn't give a link is because it is one of many kinds of studies all put on one page, but here is the link..
I figured at 111 comments that length wasn't an issue anymore.
3. Yes yes, how droll, Martin doesn't have a point. Martin was merely pointing out the similarites in what he has been reading lately and then threw in a helpful study i thought may have been of some help to you.
Martin hates people that refere to themselves in the third person.
BLIMEY!! What (or who) has upset you!!
1. *brushing the sarcasm away* I don't see my theory as a 'monster', mate. I'm hoping it is something beautiful.
2. Thanks for the link, it just stops all the copyright hoohah!!!
And it's not the number of comments that has any relevance, it's the quality of them that counts and everyone's here have been FANTASTIC and original.
3. I thank you immeasurably for bringing the study to our awareness, indeed I would suggest you look much further into the work of Richard Wiseman, who may well be a sceptic in some aspects but he is also a phenomenal psychologist and his writings on 'Being Stared At' via CCTV are fascinating.
As yes, I was wondering why you'd gone all self-referential.
Good work my boy, tremendous banter as ever.
What's that coming over the hill...?
Is it a monster?
I meant monster in the sense of HUGE and very POWERFUL or even INFLUENTIAL.
Good things Karl, good things. ;0)
I really appreciated your contributing that bit the skeptic and the paranormal investigator working together. You might recall my "bitching" earlier about unscientific attitudes amongst people. I think it is ok to believe or to be skeptical but there is no advancement in the thinking unless someone tries to scientifically experiment. Your report gives me hope that people could advance some of these ideas.
"What's that coming over the hill...?
Is it a monster?"
No, it's Colin Lloyd !!
(A gag for Darts fans there, see all types catered for !!)
WOW, thank you for those words Martin
*slips tenner under table*
Ra from Ca;
Good point Ruth, and you could never be 'bitchy' could you?
By the way Karl i never recieved any such email about this film refference? Did you send it to my work email? I'll check tomorrow.
Sorry Jesamyn, i can't think of it, although i do know the film you are reffering to. Leave it with me, i'll probably have a toilet revelation in week or so!
(we all know what this actually means so let's not purposely misinerpret it now ok!)
Yes I did (along with some other stuff).
I repeat Sweet Jesamyn's question though here for you:
"What WAS that movie where you could go in to a Virtual Library, touch a screen and have shelves of files appear all around you? It fascinated me, even though I cannot remember the name of it!!"
Tony asked if it was "Bruce Almighty" but as it is a film I'm a tad in the dark.
Awed to be amongst this Great group once more!!! I really DON'T think it was Bruce Almighty, I feel it was before that and may have even had Demi Moore in it.... I do not have ready access to a Video Library, although Bruce Almighty is repeated ad nauseum on TV!!! Lets see if it comes on this week as a *deep breath*
Synchropenditous Event and no I do not have a TV Week here....,*glares at anyone who may think this* oh no I better not do the Glaring bit....Thanks in Advance to anyone with the Answer...*moderates gaze* heavens I have really raved on, sorry......
Oooh! Demi Moore, are we back on Demiurges again?
I'm reminded re the 'gaze' of something that It's Cool To Care; aka Ed said to me in the pub last time I was with him (Hi Ed - if you're around I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my theory, especially towards those living with Autism), anyway Ed said he felt there was a collective subjective consciousness at work during the European Cup Final in 2005 when Liverpool were 3-0 down to Milan and came back to win the Cup. This would certainly fit in with my theory.
Essentially To Tony; but to ALL as well,
While considering my theory tonight I pondered the implications of it on Everett's MWI and have come up with a staggering solution:
Imagine that there are indeed Many Parallel World's ‘out there’ – those being...........
Everybody We Know!!!!!!!
It is only in our own subjective consciousness that things are "as they are" to us, as ITLAD explains. In effect I argue that the Multiverse of Parallel Universe is actually all around us in our empiricalism, we are all one individual universe of our own subjectively observed making. We collapse the consciousness wave and create the particle of consciousness that is our phaneron. Thus the Parallel Worlds of MWI are actually the Parallel Lives that others live with us, as separate-conscious-[ly] observed particles of consciousness existing as subjective collapses of the consciousness wave on the objective consciousness field. So things are only as you observe them to be, in your own subjective consciousness which would mean that Quantum Events in your Universe DO alter from Quantum Events in other people’s universes. If electrons seem to exist in many places at once it is because they in fact do, but as one person (an individual universe) observes one outcome, another person (a parallel universe) will observe another.
This allows the Copenhagen Interpretation AND the Many World’s Interpretation to sit together perfectly within objective consciousness!!!!! BLIMEY!!!!!
Taking Schrodinger’s Cat as an example of my thinking (putting to one side the Cat’s consciousness argument for a second), it could therefore be argued that the Cat DOES exist alive and dead at the same time, for if one subjective consciousness opened the box, to them the Cat would be dead (say), but if another person had opened the box in the first instance, it would not be. BUT……….Decoherence would then collapse the specific wave form in the consciousness of whoever opened the box in the first place thereby the resulting state of the Cat being alive or dead would be empirically the same to all observers, BUT if someone else had opened the box in the first instance (being a parallel world themselves) then the outcome could have been different and in that moment Decoherence would also make the observation by others to the event the same.
Similarly in Max Tegmark’s Quantum Suicide, it would depend on who the observer was that determines the Quantum Event outcome.
Therefore, not only does observation collapse the wave but then Decoherence makes the result observable by all. BUT the original observation would differ in the initial observation of another person’s universe.
Consciousness cannot arise out of nowhere. A moment of consciousness cannot be produced without the moment of consciousness that immediately preceded it.
Collective Daemonic Consciousness perhaps, existing within a Universal Objective Consciousness Field, and we are all Subjective Particles of that Consciousness Wave, existing in Daemonically guided Eternal Returns???? Your Bohmian IMAX is as it appears to you because you collapsed the consciousness wave and created your own universe, whereas I collapsed the consciousness wave and created my own Bohmian IMAX.
These separate objective worlds, as separate particles of consciousness, then interact via Quantum Entanglement.
Thais my friends is a TIWIGI moment. I hope you see the implications this could mean.
I’m starting to really challenge myself to suggest ways to oppose my theory but everywhere I look in Quantum Mechanics, it just seem to fit in.
I really think we could be onto something HUGE here (I’m even exciting myself – yes I need a girlfriend, I know) *smile*
I think my Collapsing the Consciousness Wave theory if discussed alongside ITLAD could further revolutionise Tony's original brilliant idea and expand it to incorporate everything.
Now this is a MASSIVE question I know, but some here are the only ones I trust and who I think are knowledgeable enough to answer it.
What Do You Think?
Karl; Indeed this does justice to, and expands upon, much of what Tony has set forth in his text re the Bohmian Implicate Order, which I found to be truly seductive and fascinating. Something akin to what you have set down in these remarks had been brewing in my own mind, but I am less thorough and articulate far less clearly than you: You have inherited and surpassed the best in Tony's theory, and it has germinated in you, and been defended most beautifully. My god, you are as brilliant as Tony and the 2 of you augment and enhance all that you speak of. Wonderful; indeed, the implications are vast and far-reaching.
My Dear Lady, thank you for your comments, when one comes up with such a theory as this it is a deeply solipsistic process, but it has been through Tony, his blog, and my friends on here that I have been able to posit my theory amongst like minded people and see if it makes sense objectively, as it makes perfect sence to me subjectively.
WOW, thank you again.
I hope that others will consider my question posted on 21st April at 00:30 hours above (scroll up) and tell me what they think also.
Wow, 124 comments! Fantastic; absolutely fantastic.
I often experience the sensation of being stared at, both as a starer and as a stare-ee. It's gotten to the point where I try to avoid looking at people for too long, because I fully expect to get caught. (Of course, sometimes I forget.) I've noticed that animals are especially good at knowing when they're being stared at. I know that if I become aware of birds singing in my garden, I should avoid looking at them if I want them to stick around so I can enjoy their chirping -- if I stare for too long (which isn't very long at all, in the case of birds), they'll fly away, and I'll have no-one to blame but myself.
For a long time I've thought this phenomenon was due to the fact that we're all connected -- everyone and everything is part of one Universal mind. I've also thought of it in terms of "non-locality" -- our seemingly individual minds do not exist in our heads as such, but "out there" in the non-local field, where they can easily touch upon other seemingly individual minds. But I think Karl's theory offers a more comprehensive explanation of how all this actually works. So, thank you, Karl. And thanks to everybody for the great discussion!
KARL: Excellent stuff. One of the biggest problems I have always had with itlad ad CTF is the 'problem of other minds'. You will recall our discussions this time last year with Mick (whatever happened to Mick? If your out there mate you will love this discussion)when he quite reasonably pointed out that what worried him about CTF was its profound solipsism. Indeed in the first version of the book (somewhat watered down in the later versions) I introduced Bohm's Implicate Order as a way of introducing an additional factor that would explain how other minds can exist within my own self-created phaneron. I am of the opinion that your new theory avoids the solispism trap. Great stuff.
I am reminded of the concept known as "Wigner's Friend. This theory suggests 'many minds' rather than 'many worlds' when looking for a solution to Schrodinger's cat paradox. (For those of you who have not come across Wigner's Friend an excellent description can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend).
I cannot but agree with Susan Marie that you have taken my theory and moved onto the next level. We must find you a publisher for this!
Man do you think! and I am aware you think
I struggle with this part "Collective Daemonic Consciousness perhaps, existing within a Universal Objective Consciousness Field, and we are all Subjective Particles of that Consciousness Wave, existing in Daemonically guided Eternal Returns???? "
How is the Universal Consciousness Field objective?
But as I said earlier "I am aware I think slowly"
Terrific to get your input, thank you.
I wonder if your one-ness with the animals is just another manifestation of our whole one-ness with nature, the one-ness of all objective consciousness?
*challenges Dreamer to a staring contest*
I like your 'non-locality' thoughts, which is why I brought the EPR Paradox in to explain that part of my theory. And you seem very much to be of the opinion that my theory has some sense of probability behind it, thank you.
Thank You. I thought my "Mother Paradox of Cheating The Ferryman" idea took CTF away from the Solipsism arguement but this theory seems to have left even that behind!!!!
And it very probably doesn't surprise you that I include Wigner's Friend in my more in-depth writing towards my theory as a tool to help explain my thoughts. BUT, as far as I can see, I seem to be the only one suggesting this 'subjective collapse of the objective consciousness wave creating subjective particles of consciousness' aspect, which I suppose is the 'angle' on which my theory is original.
I'll email you off blog, regarding your other comments. THANK YOU.
Ra from Ca;
Hee Hee! Yeah I certainly think, therefore I am!!!!
Basically I read (A LOT), and if I'm not reading then I am writing, and if I am not writing then I am thinking. That's about it !!!!!
Now, you ask:
"How is the Universal Consciousness Field objective?"
The Consciousness Field is objective as it is existant outside of our own subjectivity. Individually we exist within our own particle of consciousness created by our own collapse of the consciousness wave.
NOW, collectively, all these subjective particles of consciousness can then interract with each other within the objective consciousness field via Quantum Entanglements.
I hope that answers your question, but please do ask if you have any more.
Thanks Ruth, as ever your dedication to following the thought-process is wonderful.
Criminey! I can't keep up with you all. Yesterday, I printed out the 10 pages of comments (in 8 pt font, mind you) and now I must print another 14!! At this rate, I'll never catch up.
Nonetheless and notwithstanding and all that ... here are some comments. (Sure hope Blogger doesn't impose a limit on the number of comments --- we may be in trouble)
KARL-- First some comments about your post:
I have not tried staring at someone for a long time. I used to try it as a child in church but I honestly do not remember the result.
When I have been staring at someone -- not to try and make them turn around but just because I was looking at them -- I've felt that most of the time, they see me before I look away and we both knew I was staring. The contact is very brief -- fraction of a second -- but finite. Very infrequently, have I been able to avert my gaze after I notice them starting to turn their head and eyes in my direction. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the last time I caught someone staring at me so I have no data for the reverse scenario. (I really do not get out much, as you may have guessed.)
Now some basic questions about your theory which (no surprise to me) I do not fully understand.
1) What is the observation that collapses the wave? The other wave functions collapse when you measure something related to the particle which is, at the moment, existing as a wave. So what is the analogous measurement or observation for the consciousness wave?
2) From where is the consciousness wave function emanating? Who/what is generating it for us to observe and collapse? You talk about this in your answer to Johar but you only talk about where it is and not how it got there.
3) You said, on 18-Apr, "being individual subjective particles of consciousness existing within an objective consciousness field, our own phaneron is therefore, within itself, a complete universe of its own creation." And perhaps this is also a question about ITLAD. So, are you saying that we are making observations of the objective consciousness field (OCF) which collapse the wave function and produce consciousness particles which are added to our subjective consciousness, out phaneron? And, two people could collapse the wave function differently? And, we can become entangled with other subjective consciousnesses?
Then, my question is, isn't it surprising that the world makes sense? For the most part, everyone in my phaneron seems to be collapsing the wave function in the same way that I am. That book over there is blue, no matter who I ask. Bush is the president, no matter who I ask. Scientific experiments are repeatable. Etc.
Of course, on the other hand, maybe this DOES explain a few things like why an ex-girlfriend swore up and down that I said X when I know full well I said Y. Is that evidence that the wave function was collapsed differently? Or is is just evidence that she was psycho as I thought?
I actually had this thought a while ago -- but does this explain conspiracy theorists? Perhaps, in their phaneron, we really DID fake the moon landing and the CIA really DID have JFK shot.
4) On 18-Apr, you also mention the objective perception consciousness field. What is this?
5) Again on 18-Apr, you mention an emotional connectivity. Is this not intuition, a la Jung's psychological types? I think an excellent experiment would be to talk to everyone who does turn around and look at you to find out what they do for a living. My guess is that you would a lot of people who use intuition in their everyday life -- perhaps some stock traders, safari guides, etc. but very few cubicle-dwelling computer programmers.
6) Yet again, on Apr-18, you were replying to Susan Marie about Transference. What would your theory say about Projection which can happen with physical objects (unlike Transference)? Do physical objects affect the consciousness field or collapse the wave function?
7) Finally (at least until I read the next 14 pages), I would be remiss if I did not point out the Jungian ideas of Edward F. Edinger. In his book, The Creation of Consciousness, (which I am still in the process of reading and digesting). Are you familiar with it? Susan Marie, are you?
I am now realizing that it would be too much to append to this already long comment. I could email you off-blog about it or I could write up a brief separate post. Do you have a preference?
Well, that's it for now. I do have and will have other comments but I'll let you all chew on this for a minute or two.
ROBIN-- You mention pictures giving you the same sensation of being stared at. YES! The Mona Lisa, for example. I'm sure you are all aware of the illusion when the eyes in a picture are looking straight ahead, they seem to following you when you move from side to side.
I wonder if this has to do with Projection (as I mention in the previous comment to KARL)? Maybe we are, in effect, projecting our own expectation of the feeling and it's bouncing off the picture and coming right back to us where we pick up on it and react to it, all the while forgetting that it emanated from us in the first place?
BTW, I am a HUGE phone-pacer. I've never thought about it much but I think it's because I'm introverted and so am uncomfortable talking with people -- even on the phone. Maybe it's a way to burn off nervous energy.
Another Jungian thought about all of this. Perhaps the sensation is a form of Synchronicity.
From the C.G. Jung Lexicon by Daryl Sharp:
Synchronicity: A phenomenon where an event in the outside would coincides meaningfully with a psychological state of mind. Jung associated synchronistic experiences with the relativity of space and time and a degree of unconsciousness. Synchronicity was defined by Jung as an "acausal connecting principle," an essentially mysterious connection between the personal psyche and the material world, based on the fact that at bottom they are only different forms of energy.
Perhaps the sensation is a double-ended synchronicity. If my psyche is connected to the material world then why can't someone else's psyche be connected to the same point, thus completing the connection between our two psyches?
Hi Ken, great to have your involvement in what has been an amazing response to my new theory.
Right *dusts speckles of cake from lips* to address your comments:
1) Our Sentience is the observation that collapses the wave. Whether sentience is achieved within the room or outside, is debateable, but once the brain has formed and the ability to empirically receive sense input is established then sentience has evolved and the sentient brain can then collapse the objective consciousness wave thus creating the subjective consciousness particle that we perceive to be our own phaneron.
2) The consciousness wave eminates everywhere as it is a wavefunction, it is only the particles of the wave function that can be detected, ie, ourselves. The consciousness wave originated, as did everything from the Big Bang.
3) Almost. I think I answer your question in a very recent comment about how my theory allows MWI and Copenhagen to operate together. Two people indeed collapse the objective consciousness wave differently to produce two particles of consciousness. And yes, we can form Quantum Entanglements with other particles of consciousness. (BUT check out one of my newest additions to the comments placed last night 21st April at 00:30 for fuller answer.
Your sebsequent question is answered by Decoherence, which I again covered in the comment dated 21st April at 00:30 and Tony alluded to the idea of Wigner's Friend and the Many Minds Interpretation, see those comments and if your question remains unanswered get back to me, but I think you'll find it will be.
HaHa! re your 'psycho' girlfriend Ken. I think Science can and very probably will explain most things, but the may a woman's head works will always be a sublime mystery !!
And your conspiracy question I would say is answerable within the traditional Parallel Universes idea, not my new take on such.
4) The Objective Perception Consciousness Field is how Rupert Sheldrake thinks the Sensation Of Being Stared At is explainable, and I agree - I placed a link to his site if you want to read his thoughts on the perception field. I didn't incorporate that into my own theory (Collapsing the Consciousness Wave) as it would only complicate matters further) but I do include it in my fuller writings towards my theory.
5) Very good point, and one I'm sure that would interest Rupert Sheldrake (who I am hoping we can get to read this post) towards future research.
6) I would say No to that. In order to collapse the consciousness wave and create a particle of consciousness requires sentience, and not many physical objects have sentience.
7) I am not aware of that book Ken, no, please email me off blog with some details and I will be very interested to receive such.
Thanks for your comments as ever Sir, I hope my replies are to you satisfaction and I look forward to hearing any more questions you may have and unltimately whether you agree with, seemingly all of us, that I have here a rather interesting new theory.
NO, you are a phone-walker because you are a MAN and you have emotional detachment from the call. I wrote that paper three years ago now and I still laugh in the pub if someone's phone goes off, they take one look at who is calling and then stand up, "Hello, how are you doing?" and off they go, wandering about like a lost minstrel (or something).
Yes, I agree, but whereas Jung called it a mysterious connection I posit an explanation for such connection in my theory; the Quantum Entanglements of two subjectively collapsed particles of consciousness.
Let's see if I've got this straight!!! (after 4 days of digesting!And a little bit of regurgitating as well - you really didn't need to know that!)Keeping it simple to make sure I've got the major themes sorted:
1)Sentience causes a the wave collapse withing an objective consciousness field.
2)We live in our own subjective consciousness universe.
3)What happens in the universe of one subjective consciousness universe may differ from that of another subjective consciousness.
4)However, decoherence enables several subjective consciousnesses to observe the same outcome to an event.
5)We can observe the universe of other subjective consciousnesses via quantum entanglement.
How did I do? I've been drawing pictures for the last 20 minutes to help me get my head round it - see what you've reduced me to - playing with crayons!!!
*giggles not unlike a 4 year old*
Hey JoJo, BLIMEY girl, you have been giving my theory some thought haven't you?
You have a darn good grasp of my thinking there young lady, (there are a couple of minor things I'd iron out with you but that's just me being picky)
If you want me to say what they are then let me know, but essentially yes, you have a very good basis of my theory there.
Now what have I told you about playing with crayons in the house?
*picks up JoJo and places on the naughty step*
KAAAARRL please can I get off the naught step now? I want you to to iron out the wrinkly bits!!! oooer!!
Tell me where the crayons let me down I really want to get a handle on this I'm really enjoying it!!
*coughs into hand saying 'geek' at same time*
Ah! You can't beat an enthusiastic student. That's what I used to say, and it has a double truism these days given the EU's ruling on corporal punishment
*Back Off Brussels*
Ok, so being ever so slightly semantic.
1. "Sentience causes a the wave collapse withing an objective consciousness field" - The Consciousness field is objective yes, in that it is 'out there' outside of 'us'. Our brain, once sentient and capable of receiving emprirical input then collapses the wave. You are 98% there with your sentence, I just had a niggle because it's not sentience in itself that collapses the wave, if you see my thinking.
2. "We live in our own subjective consciousness universe" - CORRECT! *hands JoJo badge with "SWOT" on in gold lettering*
3. "What happens in the universe of one subjective consciousness universe may differ from that of another subjective consciousness" - Correct again, given the observation is purely subjective, meaning there is no other observer to the outcome or event.
4. "However, decoherence enables several subjective consciousnesses to observe the same outcome to an event" - Absolutely correct-a-mundo. Gosh she's good!!!
5. "We can observe the universe of other subjective consciousnesses via quantum entanglement" - Hmmm! Not sure about being able to 'observe'. Via Quantum Entanglement we certainly can interract, affect, effect, synchronise and influence other subjective consciousnesses. And through my theory we can be very much aware of the energies of others.
Excellent work Miss Harris, see me after class *ahem*
Basically down to wording as you said and interpretation, easily dewrinkled with a bit of steam.
Communicate, elucidate and if you don't agree bifurcate! EH? Where did that come from??!!
O and loving Evanescence!!!
Yep, as I said, it's my niggling semantics.
And you never call me when you're sober!
Play "You" (the last track from "Not For Your Ears" and imagine me crying like a baby - which it makes me do!!!
Thank you for your comments, but if I could kindly and respectfully ask you to read the whole of the discussion, for it is a wonderful example of how ITLADians can pull together.
Personal attacks, such as yours, are not to be accepted in this forum; if you have a personal issue then I suggest you email me directly.
The manner and style of my comments on certain posts are a progression of previous posts and are therefore in an ongoing thematic.
I look forward to addressing this in more detail if I receive such email from you that I have requested.
*whispers to everyone*
But I suspect I won't receive such an email!!
I propose we have some fun experimenting with this and post our results here. ;-)
Today I stared at my cat for a full 3 minutes. She was stretched out on the floor with her back to me, purring. A few seconds into my gaze, the purring stopped. Gradually her tail started to flick as if she was annoyed. About 3 minutes into the experiment she complained with a few guttural meows, (but never turned to look at me) got up and walked out of the room. I think she felt the sensation but in her usual cat-way, refused to give me the satisfaction of eye contact.
Good idea, I'm liking the imagery of you intently staring at the back of your cat, index fingers on temples with an expression of pure determination!!
Now, if my theory is right, then thought and 'mind' are purely forms of energy that can be 'felt' by other subjective consciousnesses, and although animal cognition is certainly of a different degree than human cognition, it is equally certain of being the same form of cognition.
Interesting ideas Robin, thank you.
*stares intently at Robin's photo*
I would like to say a big Hello to all from ISHVAL who may come to read this blog in the next few days and to say how massively influential the writings and work of Eugene Halliday are in the context of both Tony's marvellous work within his theories of ITLAD and CTF and how potentially my own Collapsing the Consciousness Wave Theory may be perceived in an ISHVALian light.
Reading the late Eugene Halliday's work on his "Reflexive Self-Consciousness", I am struck by many similarities which I feel my theory can now suggest some answers. And his lecture on Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" is fascinating in light of a recent thesis I have just written and will be lecturing on a new psychological interpretation of the characters within it. Halliday's words echoed in my mind, and I am looking forward to attending the meeting with Tony with much eagerness and excitement at the discussions that will ensue.
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
I had asked Karl L Le Marcs if he would allow me to post some remarks taken from a letter to Anthony Peake, which are my own words. I post these because at the time I drafted the e-mail letter, my impressions of Karl's theory and his fine post were vivid in my mind, and the words fought for expression, and it is this that I would like to share:
"Anthony; . . . I think he has expanded the Father-theory which is yours, and done honor to it.. . and it strikes me as auspicious in the extreme that he has appeared on your blog to support and enhance your own beautiful work. . . To my thinking he has reinforced your central thesis while enlarging the perspective with his own expansive theorizing, while loose ends of the CTF annex are tied up. Moreover he does so in a timely manner; at an hour when quantum physics is merging with consciousness studies in way unprecedented, and which resonates with academic philosophy. . . I view his manic and astonishing intelligence as a sign-post to a fusion of your respective theories that which is stunning in its timeliness and precision, and that I think will give the final stamp on your theory, and secure the solid place in theory history which is its due. . . " SMK
I am wont, idiosyncratically, to often exclaim Blimey! on occassion within this blog but BLIMEY!!!
Thank you, deeply, my Dear Lady for your words, and I am sure that Tony himself would feel as humbled as I do that our collective pub-based ramblings to one another have produced some theoreticising that has had such an obvious effect on one so cultured, well-read and academic as your good self.
It is my hope that I can, with Tony's assistance, obtain a publisher to allow me to take my theory to more of the people and I modestly aspire to also affect the lives of such wondrous people that frequent this blog as a result of Tony's original and beautiful book and theories.
Your personal conributions, Susan Marie, to the multitude of comments to my post and my theory are ones for which I am specifically and eternally grateful.
One wonders what our old mutual hero Gurdijeff would make of these thoughts.
BLOHMI! (In a Bohmian syntax-version of BLIMEY!)
and perhaps even CRIPES!
Yes, very welcome all ISHVALians, I hope to meet you soon, but alas not tomorrow!
In true synchrondipitous style
Karl, your theory gives a science and logic basis to many 'facts' taken as read in the subjective worlds of shamanic and magick and old, old, teachings of the planet with which I am familiar.
As I said in your red pill post, right now feels odd for the things you say NOT to be common knowledge, given the places and beings I've visited just recently...
If I can also set a challenge and say, keep going, there's more....
and for those of you who can cope with non-science-backed books, look for the SETH series of books by Jane Roberts, which confirm Tony and Karls theories from a very different point of view! I recommend 'Seth Speaks' as a starter for 10
Thank you, as ever, for your input.
I do know that the "Seth" books have been mentioned before elsewhere on this blog and I agree with you.
Never one to shirk a challenge, I will take your words on board and indeed will keep going. Sometimes it just takes one person to formulate a theory based on pre-agreed idiologies to act as a weaver melding together the disparate strands of belief and esoterica.
My mind loom is busy creating this rich tapestry and the two of us need to get together again, and soon, as I feel you can add more to my theory before I am finally happy with all its implications.
*All hail to the ale*
I've come to the conclusion I have been desensitized to being stared at by my environment. I work in an area that has a central hub with 15 beds in a circle around it. I am used to, on a daily basis, having multiple pairs of eyes staring straight at me whilst I work. I am aware they are staring but i feel like I've put up a 'force field' to screen them out because I feel uncomfortable. So I guess that does mean I am aware of being stared at then but that I am deliberately trying to desensitize myself so it doesn't stress me out so much.
What an interesting remark! Johar, what is it exactly that you do?
I am a nurse in a medical assessment unit in the west midlands. We take ambulances and walk in patients and as you can imagine it gets really hectic and busy. With so many people in the department I think I must get sensory overload and desensitizing myself is a coping mechanism. I work 12 hour shifts *smiles at Robin* and I can tell when I'm getting to the end of the shift and am tired because the staring bothers me much more.
Oh, that does sound like intense work, and I can see where the "sensation of being stared at " in such a situation might become overwhelming at times!!!
JoJo, very interesing comments on your work and being stared at, I'm going to give that some thought (not the nurses uniform, obviously)
I'll talk to you off blog rather than take up more space here and then we can add any relevant bits to the comments section later.
But thanks, great new angle on my theory.
Very astute comments, Dear Lady, I think you are correct, I'll let you know the outcome of my chat with Johar regarding her thoughts on her "block" etc
Science Daily reports on a paper entitled
"Birds Can Tell If You Are Watching Them -- Because They Are Watching You"
Facinatingly apt considering the wonderful discussions we've had here regarding my post on The Sensation Of Being Stared At and my theory of "Collapsing The Consciousness Wave"
Link To Report Dated 30th April
Oh, this is very fascinating and I do think it involves strongly "theory of mind" which is so important to both philosophy (in particular, phenomenology) and to psychology . Very relevant article to your potent thesis, thank you Le Marcs, as always. smk
I'm glad that you agree with me, Dear Lady.
Brings a whole new aspect to Hitchcock's "The Birds" doesn't it??
Right here's one to ponder over. Has anyone ever had the sensation of being stared at/watched when there's NOBODY there?
I've had several incidences where I have been totally alone and felt I was being observed. (I did check the curtains were closed to make sure there wasn't a strange man with binoculars across the road!)
So, what do you make of that and has anyone else had these experiences and what do they think they are?
Personally, No. I've never had that feeling.
Maybe it was an Astral-eye that was observing you?
Or maybe it's just because you are JoJo!!!!!
VERY interesting comment, thanks, I shall pontificate profusely (or something) and see if anyone else has any suggestions on your comment.
Hi Karl... I hope I am not too late on this one... I just got back from a rare break...
I think that the phenomenon of turning to find someone looking at you is the result of unconscious monitoring and selective internal communication.
Your unconscious mind (all-knowing as it is) decides it may be of interest to your conscious mind to know that someone (perhaps attractive?) is staring. Or maybe it's your respective 'spirit guide(s)' or even your daemons/higher-selfs communicating with one another??
However, given that the whole thing is a construct of your own mind, then having a feeling that someone is looking at you is no more than knowing what you are creating around you.
And yes... I do believe all this stuff.
Have a great day all...
Hi mate and welcome back; it's never too late to get your view on something!
I think that, essentially, you and I see things in a very similar way - we just use different phraseology.
We must get another session of the W.I (Wirral Intelligentsia) together again very soon as I'd love to get your full take on my Collapsing the Consciousness Wave Theory
I'll email you off-blog and let's get a mutually convenient day organised (heck we can even throw Tony an invite!!)
Karl... I'll reply off line.. maybe Tony will step in and offer to buy the beers... (in my mind's eye..ha ha) Ed
*does that Jack Douglas from the Carry On films thing, spitting beer from mouth in surprise*
I believe indeed that it is Tony's round!
(although I did promise him a birthday beer so damnation and blast)
Thanks to the eagle-eyes of Tony, he has spotted that my theory Collapsing the Consciousness Wave is being discussed outside of this blog!
Check out the link below to see what others are saying, and ALL of you that have conributed comments to this post of mine have helped to progress my theory, so once again a HUGE Thank You from me.
Dean's Circle Blog - Thoughts On Consciousness
Oh, god. I knew it. After all, how long could something so momentous be contained for long within our private citadel? I for one think Tony and Le Marcs have a date with destiny, as I tried to say in my rambling letter to Tony. What more could be needed in the way of proof positive that it's time; it's late? If I were you I would rejoice: not only is the time near, it is at the very door. Do not ignore its knocking, but respond, and with haste. Karl, ride out, boy; and send it home solid. I 'd kill to be in your shoes.
What an endorsement!
But you may slip about a bit in my clumping size 12 shoes!
But Thank You, this may be a TIWIGI moment!!
(See ITLAD Glossary)
Hmmmm, I thought of another time I had the sensation of being stared at. New Years Eve, Flaming Lips concert in Oklahoma City. 20,000+ fans were each given a laser pointer (I ended up with one in each hand...lol). We used them to make contact with each other from across the arena... sort of eye contact "at a distance", as well as jiggle the beam on thousands of 6 foot diameter balloons being bounced all over. People would target the backs (and back-sides) of those in front. I swear you could FEEL the beam. I'd turn to my husband and say "is my ass lit"? And sure enough, it was. Now, was this the minuscule amount of heat generated by the beam, the tickling of skins cells on some atomic level or ENTANGLEMENT of one consciousness to another?
It was true that when thousands of us bombarded the same balloon with laser beams for extended lengths of time, the balloon did float in the air which makes me think it must be heat. But what of a single light? Could that honestly be felt?
ROBIN: A fellow fan of the great Flaming Lips!
Sounds a really amazing concert.
As regards your question it has been long known that 'particles' of light can have an effect on objects. Indeed, as I recall, one of the first papers written that implied the world of quantum mechanics was an early one by Einstein in which he suggested that something called the "photoelectric effect" proved that light was made up of particles, not waves. When shone on a metallic surface light was observed to 'kick out' electrons from the surface of the metal as if it was being bombarded by tiny 'bits' of matter.
As I recall, and I may be wrong on this, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for this revelation.
So it is not surprising that a highly concentrated and focused beam of light such a s a laser will move a very light object such as a balloon. Indeed as it is a form of electro-magnetic radiation a laser should also give a sensation of heat.
I have not in any way researched this response so I may be totally wrong!
Yep, you're pretty much bang on there.
I certainly agree with you on the Quantum Entanglement from one consciousness to another.
Another interesting development has come to my attention regarding my Collapsing the Consciousness Wave theory.
I hope, very much, that Tony and I can collaborate on something within this area soon and I would like to say that IF I am fortunate enough to seek publication of my theory then I will certainly credit each and every one of you for your time, input and comments on this extraodinary post response, especially one person (who knows who they are).
Thank You, I may add more soon.
I would like to add to this wonderful thread by expressing my thanks to both Karl and Tony. The first time I read this post I was blown away with the simplicity and elegance used to express a theory of consciousness I too had shared. Karl’s words were so poignant I quoted him while explaining my beliefs on a different blog. And of course I want to thank Tony for helping me evolve my current thoughts on consciousness. ITLAD solidified a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and the mind and was therefore quite instrumental in my current world view.
RAC: Thank you Robert for your kind words and your interest in my theory. Very humbling, thank you.
To Robins earlier concert experience post I would say this: Often when I find myself walking behind a woman I’ll notice her using a hand to check if things are in order "back there." So is this her body language drawing attention to a particular body part or merely a reaction to an already affixed gaze? I suspect the latter. ;-)
Thanks to Karl's post and Robert's comment... I'll never feel the same when strolling in the park or shopping in the mall! Thanks guys! hahaha
RAC: Robert!!! BLIMEY!!! One wonders what method of Quantum Entanglement is on your mind when you witness this.
I've never noticed such myself and I do a LOT of people watching in another realm of my gestalt existentialism. However this may well be due to the fact then when I'm ambling along I have very little cognisance of anyone around me as I'm usually deep in some random thought-processes type hoohah.
Adopting a purely Body Language approach I would say yes, certainly, it would appear to be a protective/self-comforting gesture on her part (pun very much intended) that may well be because of the lecherous behaviour of the scallywag behind her - you swine!!
And Robin: Literally LOL.
You guys are killing me. I haven't laughed this hard in awhile. Glad to see this group has a GREAT sense of humor.
Cheers Robert, I do my best!
It is worth adding here that the reaction that Tony and I received to his ITLAD/CTF theory and also my own CtCw (Collapsing the Consciousness Wave) theory last evening from the Servants Of The Light was astonishing!!
It was immensely gratifying for me to hear Tony incorporate my theory into his own talk and witness the collective approval and fascination of such a learned group as SOL to its discussion.
And all of you, everyone, who has read Tony's book, conributed to this blog and has been a part of the development of my theory should take much personal pride in this.
I THANK YOU all, personally.
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
This is just a test comment, as a few people have emailed me saying they have tried to add comments to this post and have been told they cannot!
If you read these words then I don't know what the problem is.
Karl; Another test then, to see if this posts. An interesting read, as always.
I had the staring experience illustrated the other day. Our daughter, getting some driving practice, parked the car some ways away from the entrance to "London Drugs", our local pharmacy, but sells everything store. She needed to go inside but I decided to stay out with the car.
I did walk over to the entrance, however, because there was a character outside of slight concern to me; pacing, talking to himself. I simply assessed the situation and walked back to the car which was 15 or so rows of parked cars away. I sat in the passenger side waiting for our daughter to come out, keeping an eye on the person that had caught my eye.
I was some distance away, and this person who otherwise I wouldn't have thought noticed me, doesn't he turn at one point, look calmly in my direction, smile and wave (LOL).
I talked with our daughter about it when she came out. She said she was aware of the person as well, but felt they were harmless enough, if somewhat strange in their mannerisms.
A staring example then.
I was struck with another parallel example, as well, watching CNN and Larry King this evening, where the topic was Sarah Palin the new Republican VP. Sarah Palin has engaging eyes, magnified or accentuated with glasses; seems very comfortable with herself; comfortable in her own skin as one commentator said.
My sense is her gaze is one that takes in what she is looking at, in a way that could optimize the connection effect of this feeling, i.e., of being stared at. A formidable feature in a political opponent, no matter what her position on issues might be.
On the CtCw theory, I am in awe.
I need, perhaps, a clearer understanding of the terms "field" ( rugby pitch comes to mind LOL ) and a "wave" ( surfer's wave comes to mind *groan* )
I want to move on to read "Where is the internet" next !
Thx - Cam
Cam: I'm glad we managed to get your comment showing on BLOG, thank you for emailing me.
Thanks for another fabulously CtCw story regarding The 'Sensation' Of Being Stared At and Sarah Palin, yes indeed, such eyes, oh my!!!
"On the CtCw theory, I am in awe."
Oh my goodness!! Thank You Cam.
Yes, field theory is a tad more complex than a Rugby field analogy
I hope I can help if you require any guidance on what to read or look at.
Enjoy "Where Is The Internet? (An Analogy)" which was specifically written to accompany this post.
Does anybody here suffer from ignorance? I do.
I suffer from the limitations of this language. I have plenty to say about plenty of things but don't know enough words!!
This made me think...
Thinking cannot be dependent on language, or can it? Are my thoughts composed of words unknown to me as yet? Are my thoughts using the words of the 'common consciousness'?
I ask this because I find myself with ideas and things to say, but i don't know enough words to articulate them into 'being' sentences that you can read. So therefore, how can i have these thoughts if i do not poses the words to articulate them fully? what does that say about the way i think? it's like there is a part of me who comprehends every aspect of language and thinking and a part of me that doesn't know enough words to put pen to paper! Deamon/Eidolon?
Mikegrove4: I totally understand, which is specifically why I created the following posts, so I hope you find some help by reading them (and also the books)
BLOG: ITLAD Glossary [by Karl L Le Marcs]
FORUM: ITLAD Glossary - A MUST READ FOR NEW FORUM/BLOG MEMBERS
I hope this helps, Mike.
Mike: I suffer from the limitations of language as well. You are not ignorant: You are merely dealing with so many ideas which have not linked up with a venue for articulate expression. Language does not rise spontaneously in the mind: It must be learned and connections must be made between ideas and the words with which to express them. I can speak philosophically but not scientifically. This is an old post, from former times: I was more able to speak about it last year. But do not berate yourself for ignorance.
Susan Marie: "connections must be made between ideas and the words with which to express them"
That is the whole purpose of me writing and updating the ITLAD GLOSSARY!
I was trying to let him know it takes time. We all know the glossary is on the forum. It is hard to digest all at once.
I don't think everyone does "know" the glossary is there which is why I advise newcomers to go there. All learning takes time, all thought takes time, all ideology evolves, it's all a progressive egregore of energy.
Mikegrove4: If you have any further questions or need more assistance please ask me and I will be delighted to help.
Post a Comment