The Shape Of Things, It's not mind reading, not exactly... Options

So, lately I haven't been terribly active around here other than really basic admin type stuff, largely because I've been swamped with work. It's a good thing - cause it means I'm becoming 'successful' as a business owner, which is awesome - but also means that I get bogged down and have so little time for other pursuits. But, I've managed to eke out a few hours here and there and incorporated some new experiences into my practice as well. Among the various things I have acquired recently, one in particular I think is something that could be of value to others if I can manage to explain it properly. So much of this particular experience is outside the typical bounds of my language, but I think I have made the proper analogies that should identify it to anyone who has had a similar experience.

It has to do with the shape of experiences. I'll explain.

It may or may not be common knowledge, but I have been a martial artist on and off (if you're ever really 'off' of it) for about 13 years. I've studied Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Kyuki-do, Judo, Jujitsu, and 'Shaolin-do' (which we recently learned wasn't kung fu at all , but it was still a good workout and assuming you already know your basic body mechanics it's a servicable martial art... I digress).

I've always had an aptitude for it, and for most physical skills, if I see it done at least once I can reliably repeat it and by the third or so iteration I can execute a technique at speed without stumbling. I credit years of 'ninja training' with my little brother (surprise attacks, wrestling matches, beating one another to a pulp, devising 'training' exercises based on the kung fu and ninja movies we were watching growing up). Recently I have been focused entirely on Aikido. It suits me, I enjoy it, and our style is adapted from a student of Ueshiba-sama who had a background in Judo first, so our art incorporates a bit more close quarters throws and grappling techniques. Good fun. Over time, I've had to pay more attention to how I learn in order to take those steps towards making the art my own rather than learning and regurgitating skills. I noticed something.

I learn by watching the 'shape' of the experience. It's the movements, the interaction between the two people, the progression of those two things through time, the physics at work to drive the operation, and other subtle things i have less ease at expressing - the tension and it's expression and release, is possibly a good way to explain it. But I don't experience these things in sequence or separately; the shape of the experience is those things all together. When I have this shape, it's like having a template for a puzzle - instead of disparate pieces with no directions on what they are meant to look or feel like when they are completed, I just kind of step into the shape and the experience becomes something I can 'ride'. It is an intuitive process and doesn't require me to do anything - so I don't have to intellectualize this process and when I learn a new technique I don't have to think it all through. I just see it, and then put myself in a certain mindset, and then I can do it. Thinking about it hinders the process, as with so many other intuitive tasks.

Well, I considered this for some time and tried to apply it in other ways but found that of course thinking about it gummed up the process. However, I was able to get the chance to observe some wood work at a recent fair at which there was a gentleman making chairs. It was neat stuff, and I tried this same process and attempted to reproduce it at home. My chair was not structurally sound, but I had managed to harness the actual carving technique fairly well. I have plans to continue trying but little time to carve as it is a tedious process and I need to have soft hands for my work.

Now, recently I have also been learning to program, Java primarily but I'm also learning c# and c++ as well. It's working out good so far, I don't lack for intellectual strengths, but I have approached areas where my lack of purely academic education is showing itself, so I have been experimenting just for the heck of it to try and apply what I'm learning in ways that will teach me, ideally, what these elements can and cannot or will not do. In short it's tough, which is somewhat novel for me, most things are relatively easy when only intellectual effort is required.

A few days ago, this process and my current project intersected with another intuitive technique that I use during my massage and reiki sessions, as well as to some degree consultations. I have a way of locating, energetically, structures which represent a kind of anchor for the issues at hand (hah, pun). Sometimes this is simple, like a muscle in spasm, and sometimes it is more complex, like an old emotional issue. I follow energetic cues as I work and eventually find the places where things seem to be twisted up, for lack of a better term. I work the area physically and energetically until I feel that tension dissipate and sometimes the results are very sudden and obvious, while other times it can take a few hours to become obvious. The experience isn't comparable to much of anything else I can think of at the moment... maybe a bit like running your fingers through loose strings until you find knots, in the dark (I don't really 'see' energy, for me it's hardly visual at all.) Or waving your hand through fog trying to feel the areas that are more moist/cold than the others. In any case...

I was working with a semi-regular client who will be moving soon, and we were talking about what has prompted the move and he explains that he is a software engineer, and is going to be part of a start up company in another state. We start talking about programming and it turns out his primary language is Java, though he started with C++ years ago. The conversation dies out after a while as he starts to drift into that space everyone goes to during a massage, and I have the idea that he has, in his energetic anatomy, in his collection of experiences, the 'shape' of Java programming. Like myself and other purely intellectual skills, there must be a structure in there somewhere that is the expression of that cumulative experience.

The ethics might be a bit gray, and keep in mind that I'm not suggesting a kind of telepathy in the sense that I was able to read his mind, as in know what his thoughts contained, but I found a shape that resonated with what I was seeking. And again, when i say 'shape' I'm not talking about a shape you could draw or model, shape is just the best word to describe it, maybe call it a 4 dimensional shape. In any case, I was able to gain the same sense with this shape that I am able to gain during martial arts. A sense of taking on a shape, if you will, but on a purely creative/intuitive level rather than in a physical sense as with a new throw or submission technique.

I had about an hour free afterwards, so I cracked the laptop and revisited the most recent work I had abandoned under the 'learn more about Java' heap of things to get back to when I know more. It was similar in principle to the way it feels during an Aikido class - the missing bits were clear - that is, I knew where the problems were in my code. I'm developing a software for our office to do the things that several other software options provide, but not as a total package; each option only has some but not all of our desired functionality. So I am develpping each function independently as I learn and then appending them into the larger project as they start to work out, and will later refine the whole thing several times over before we can use it reliably. In any case, there are several of these things that exceed my current experience with the language, which have been major problems for me because I know enough to get part of a particular function working, but lack the complete picture to make it functional in a practical way. I also lack the time to devote as much attention as I would like on a daily basis to get up to speed. However, having touched on the shape of this client's experience and gaining a kind of experiential template, the process has become far easier, and what I learn seems to simply fall into place - and I 'know what I don't know' if that makes sense. For instance, getting one particular function, which allows clients to schedule their appointment serverside in real time with our client-side calendar requires both the server/client communication, but because there could be sensitive data also requires that this connection take place over a secured socket. I knew this was something I didn't know enough to implement yet so I had to shelve that function until I did. But when i went back over it - I didn't so much know what needed to be done, as I intuitively knew the 'shape' of what I needed and how to find it.

If it sound confusing, it's because it kind of is, but in practice I think it is not as confusing; it's trying to pack it into limited words that makes it seem complex. The process itself is very fluid and intuitive.

So here is a technique 'mock up' - that is, something to work as hopefully a starting point which your own experiences can fill in a bit when the language fails to make it entirely clear.

If you have a relaxation technique, it's preferable to use it and get into the properly relaxed frame of mind - calm mind, few thoughts, a degree of simple clarity. I do not find myself in a wildly altered state of consciousness during this process, but then my 'normal' consciousness is more and more altered over time so I might have a poor grasp at this point of 'normal' from which to express that concept. I am not one with the universe, in any case, during the work itself.

From this state, you need to become aware of the person as a living being, rather than as an object. By this I mean, that in common perspective most of us experience the world around us as 'scenery' which is interactive to some degree. It's the nature of our natural awareness. To be aware of someone else as a living being is not a complex shift, but requires a certain kind of attention, and a certain kind of acknowledgement of the presence of their life before you. We make judgements and often assume people are simpler than they are, even though we often cannot even fathom the complexity we ourselves represent. But a person is a story, sometimes decades of experiences, history, perspectives, changes, good deeds and bad, selfishness and selflessness, and all the gradients between these things. A life is no less than the universe in motion; raw matter arranged into a self-sustaining pattern with self-awareness, feelings, opinions, etc. Living beings are an anomaly of the mechanistic universe. You have to direct your attention to this perspective, to the mystery of the living being, such that you gain a sense of 'depth perception'. An echo, if you will, from a direction that is not length/width/height, but from past and potential. It's a bit like looking at a flat square, and then stepping a bit to the left and realizing it's actually a cube, right? It has more dimensions than you initially perceived.

Inside the 'echo' this person now has, you have to find the part that resonates with what you are looking for. So let us say you are trying this with a friend who has a skill you want to develop. Even better if you both have mutually desirable skills. You must have a starting point, an inkling as it were, of the skill itself. Otherwise you have nothing to resonate with. Grasp the breadth of the shape of your own experience, get a sense of the presence it represents, and try to sense the corresponding presence in the other person. If they have more experience than you, it will seem similar but more vast, like a scaled up version of your own. Hard to describe and everyone is going to perceive this a bit differently I think, but for me, for instance, it has a kind of sound-that-is-not-a-sound, like the echo of a person. It's the difference between a hi-hat and a base drum, one has a brevity, the other has a deep pulsing vibration. But how you recognize it will be different. What it produces, however, is a sense of greater skill; it's the feeling you get when you are trying to accomplish something and you finally succeed, the sense of accomplishment, excitement and confidence that blossoms up from the knowledge that "I did this!" There is an echo of this when you touch on that shape because something in your recognizes the nature of that experience and that it is greater than your own. As though for a moment the mind doesn't realize that this sudden expansion of experience is not from accomplishment, but from the presence of someone else's accomplishment. Hopefully you've all had that sense before. I realized that I get a weak version of this when I see a new technique, some part of me correlates seeing it done, seeing the shape of it, with having already accomplished it.

After this recognition occurs, you need to inhabit the shape of it. It's a kind of empathy, as though you can imagine being the person, or specifically, that the shape of your experience is the same as theirs, and that you are inhabiting that shape of your own. I do this through a little mental deception, in which I convince myself I have already accomplished it. It is sort of like that, really, but I think you may understand if you try it yourself. But in principal, it is like telling myself "Ah, of course, I just forgot that I had all this experience, I already know how to program Java." (in the aforementioned example of my own experience, obviously, substitute 'programming java' for whatever else....). After that, you simply go about learning the skill like normal. But whereas before you had an experience which was slowly building in a direction 'blindly' as you go, it seems to flow more easily into the new shape. Like you are re-learning the skill, rather than learning it fresh. I haven't discovered yet, or discerned from the previous times I have done this unconsciously, whether this process means that you will develop a similar style as well... that is a potential concern, as it is easier to develop new and creative approaches to a skill that you are fresh to, than it is to do so with a skill that you have had for a long time and have a set way of applying. I wonder if I inherit with that shape that approach to application as well.

Writing it out makes it seem like there is a process involved, like a vulcan mind-meld, but it is not so involved as this. My acquisition of this expanded experiential template while working on my client took maybe 3-5 minutes all together while I was working on his neck and scalp (so, I don't know, maybe hand to head contact is advisable; but I doubt it. It could certainly put you in the right mood if you are working with a friend, I suppose.) As I am learning Java with my partner, I am going to try to explain this process to him, and work on transmitting this 'shape' intentionally. I think if the other party knows what you are doing, they can focus on their own experience as well, making the connection perhaps easier to make. I am also intending to make a mercury talisman for the purpose of supporting this process; I imagine that if you are working with someone else actively you could do well to invoke mercury and/or air to assist actively.

If anyone is in a position where it is possible to try this, or if you have had the same experience and have a different way of explaining it for yourself, I would be very interested to hear.

peace

I kinda know what you mean. We have similar backgrounds but you seem to have more natural talent while I have had more time --being older-- to work things out with my lesser natural talent. So often you and I are talking the same language Dreamer. I use craniosacral therapy to tease out the knots in the dark, and have learned to read people's actions and reactions through years of practice. Computer languages aren't something I know about but if it is how you best can explain it that is fine. Primarily you are reading spirit. I think that we all do this but our conscious minds can't normally access the information. I'm getting better with this and sometimes manage to get a good read on someone very quickly. It can be while doing massage or being in someone's physical presence, but often as not I get insights while chatting with someone on the phone just by hearing their voice. At times I pick up what I believe are thoughts from the person. Other times it seems that they pick up mine.

I'm not sure how much you know about craniosacral therapy but you use the pulses of the spinal and cranial fluids to feel inside the person. Then by 'entraining' your pulses and energy to theirs you can create changes in them. The craniosacral pulses seem to be closely connected to the pulsation of the human body's energy or spirit. It gives you access, a solid connection if that makes sense. But you have to be careful that as you affect them they don't affect you--at least not in any permanent way. I always clear myself after a treatment and do a longer, more thorough clearing at the end of the day. But in any case, your experience isn't that far off from mine. My old teacher clued me in on some of it, long before I started experiencing it myself.

Well I'm a bit tired at the moment but I may come back later and add something more if it occurs to me.

That's awesome. It seems like you were able to pick up on the nuances of the subject from him. Reading information and facts (from a book or something) is so much easier than figuring out the capabilities and limitations of a new skill, and that's what you got from him. Goibiniu mentioned that what you are doing could be described as "reading" his spirit which makes me wonder if the quality or development of his spirit matters when you are trying to read him. Similarly when you and your partner are working on this I wonder if there is anything the other person can do to help or hinder your perception of a certain quality. For example, you could read an open book regardless of whether or not the book "wanted" to be read.

Do you feel this was a permanent illumination? I ask because someone would normally have to go over information multiple times (like with flashcards or a book), so it would be interesting to know if this is something that should be done a few times in order to "learn" the experience or if that's just not necessary. I wonder if it matters that you knew he was a Java programmer. If you had encountered that "shape" or experience in him without knowing beforehand what you were looking for, it would be fun to have recognized it anyway.

Also I wonder how feasible this would be to do with an animal or some object, or maybe even a machine. This topic raises so many very interesting questions, I'm going to have to re-read this a few times.

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Jun 27 2012, 07:52 AM

@Goibniu: That makes sense. One day when i can travel freely we're going to have to meet and greet face to face! In any case, I suppose reading the spirit is a good phrase for it - it's certainly not a purely informational/psychic element, and it's not, I think, physical either although the thought occurred to me during the massage because of the fact that we store psychic trauma in the body. That is, it follows we store other things as well. Muscle memory, for instance, resides in the body I believe, rather than the brain, though possibly still within the nervous system. This i have believed for a long time.

@Tomber: Those are all good questions! I don't have enough intentional experience to know for sure. I do commonly encounter these elements in people, but only recently recognized the significance as it applies here. However, in other instances of energetic work I have found that when you are exposed to something that isn't within your 'vocabulary', or common experience between yourself and the source of that exposure, usually it comes across entirely abstracted. I think that if one is able to transcend the common consciousness and perceive through the true mind rather than the common mind, that maybe you do not have to know what you are looking at.

A thing that occurred to me sometime this morning was that I may be thinking about it in terms of inheriting a 'thing' which is external and putting it to use; whereas if we accept a more holographic nature of consciousness, and believe in a kind of unified consciousness, then ultimately it may be more of a matter of reflection or awakening-to something... that is to say... because all consciousness is unified, and separation through ego is an illusion (if it is so), then I already possess this or that skill, but need to see my reflection inclusive of that skill in order to remember...

I have even considered that there may be a neurological component as well, but I am not much of a mechanistic thinker when it comes to these things. However, a possibility is that the experience is represented within a neural cluster which actually does have a shape (made of the many connections created to enable the skill) and that one person's brain is capable of accessing and adopting the template for those connections which may improve the rate at which it's own version is established. Again, I don't like a mechanistic model very much.

As to permanency, it's been a grand total of five days now, and I am only able to devote about 1-3 hours a day at the most (usually 1 hour or so but some days I find myself with a bit of free time) to learning and building the program, but I have not needed to consistently go back and re-read or use flash cards. However, in this particular case, much of the basic elements of the coding process are repetitive so I may be doing this without realizing it. It's worth noting, however, that in most cases I do not require study aids, reminders, notes, etc. If I read it or hear it I am more likely than not to retain it indefinitely. In school this caused problems as I refused to do homework or barely pay attention in class - I read the text book and passed the tests as they came up, and didn't see the point in 'homework' when i was learning the subject just fine without it. Surprisingly, showing off does not get you a passing grade, as homework assignments accounted for roughly 50% of the grade. Raw deal.

I like Goibniu's assessment personally as it fits with what I have experienced in other ways, although I wasn't drawing the parallels in the same way initially. I'll try to experiment with my partner but I have first to get him to some degree of initial experience in general - he is complimentary to my nature, but contradictory at the same time, and has no real interest in energy work of any sort.

peace

interfacing with others on a deep level has always been a component of my spiritual path. many years ago, this involved practices which many here would likely label as nefarious. but the act of interfacing with another person's psyche, energy body, or essence in the fabric of reality, on a profound a level as possible, has always been an interest, and something of an aptitude, whether benign or less benign.

you mention the more common way of viewing others, which is rather two dimensional. I'd agree that it's a very limited way of regarding others. personally, i am somewhat intrusive to others' "quintessence" for lack of a better term. Simply because i am uncomfortable with that 2-D perspective. It feels hollow, distant, and meaningless. It's almost as though the cultural expectation is for everyone to just take a passing glance at everyone's book cover, and to never stop to really read. I've never been a big fan of following the herd though.

i would submit that (and i think you probably already think this yourself) what you describe very eloquently as a shape, is not actually a "shape". But rather the idea of a shape is the structure which your mind builds around the abstract sensations which you are experiencing, to make a frame of reference that is easier to access.

(PS, if you haven't read it already, i'd strongly recommend reading Plato's allegory of the cave. As I think it relates to this topic of perceiving things less superficially, as well as a dozen other key tidbits of concept in occult or spiritual practice.)

the "stock wiring" of the physical human brain is really focused around dealing with everything you encounter through the context of the physical senses. so if you encounter something which is felt in a manner outside of the physical senses, the brain tries very hard to interpret the sensations into the more readily understandable physical senses. In this case, taking something which is more like a "cognition of another's essence" and interpretively representing it as a shape, which suggests to me that vision may be among your favorite physical senses for use in abstract thought.

One of the foundational pieces of my own spiritual path as it has been taught to me, has been to deconstruct the need to represent abstract thought in terms of the physical senses. My basic approach has been more focused on the concept of the internal dialog, and moving the focus of cognition out of that part of the mind, towards the area of the mind where "raw thought" occurs, before being encoded in lingual self statements, or even visualizations, dealing instead with thought on a raw conceptual basis, which isn't nearly so linear. The result being to deal with raw abstract thought on a non-representative level, similar to how hand-eye coordination works. This approach has many potential benefits, but of interest here, it would involve working with the perception of the other person in a non-abstracted fashion, rather than as represented through a visual representation like shapes.

One disadvantage of my raw-thought approach though, is that there is really no useful vocabulary for relating perceptions dealt with on that level. It's outside the common ground of human verbal interaction, which is almost unilaterally focused on describing things through the context of the physical senses. So as far as sharing perceptions, things are "mostly" ineffable.

I apply your approach in interacting with my deity (as well as a more tantric approach). basking in the depth of her essence, and blurring the lines of imagined separation of being. in that sense, your approach here is a fundamental part of my own practices related to the great work.

anyway, i really liked the way you described this sort of melding perception of another being. I wish it were a more popular or common thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Kath: Jun 28 2012, 05:02 AM

i would submit that (and i think you probably already think this yourself) what you describe very eloquently as a shape, is not actually a "shape". But rather the idea of a shape is the structure which your mind builds around the abstract sensations which you are experiencing, to make a frame of reference that is easier to access.

Because of my other work with abstract energies, I don't exactly perceive it as a shape either, but couldn't come up with a better term that fit well enough. When we think 'shape' we think of geometry and platonic solids, but that is of course not what I mean here. It was the best term I could find that would properly convey the essence of the idea; though, if we add more dimensions to the idea of the Shape, then it isn't entirely inaccurate - there is a 'structured' element, something which stands apart from the whole of the individual, just as a Deity stands apart from the Whole of Divinity - which is to say, of course, that we perceive the limited or 'parsed' structure. Everything being ultimately One, the structure itself is an illusion.

you mention the more common way of viewing others, which is rather two dimensional. I'd agree that it's a very limited way of regarding others. personally, i am somewhat intrusive to others' "quintessence" for lack of a better term. Simply because i am uncomfortable with that 2-D perspective. It feels hollow, distant, and meaningless. It's almost as though the cultural expectation is for everyone to just take a passing glance at everyone's book cover, and to never stop to really read. I've never been a big fan of following the herd though.

It's become natural for me to perceive people in this perspective, which is sometimes uncomfortable due to my own mores, but the 2-d perspective as you aptly call it, is disconcerting I would agree. When you become aware of the quintessence of a person, or a place, seeing them from a 2-d perspective is like being alone suddenly, placed in a scene that doesn't have any real presence. Knowing the difference sheds some light on the self-centered attitude so many people have - the people that populate their world are just scenery and animated objects, not really individuals with the same depth and history and character they themselves have. When you know the difference, it makes those people seem a combination of unfortunate and scary, because how easy must it be to harm others when you cannot be aware that they are real people like you?

the "stock wiring" of the physical human brain is really focused around dealing with everything you encounter through the context of the physical senses. so if you encounter something which is felt in a manner outside of the physical senses, the brain tries very hard to interpret the sensations into the more readily understandable physical senses. In this case, taking something which is more like a "cognition of another's essence" and interpretively representing it as a shape, which suggests to me that vision may be among your favorite physical senses for use in abstract thought.

I have a small dictionary of pictograms that are intended to represent visually abstract concepts that I encounter and want to be able to represent in shorthand. I would say that I am visually oriented in general, but surprisingly abstract thought was most often interpreted as textures. When I say Shape in the above, internally I am thinking of a shape the way a blind person might mean shape - the kinesthetic awareness of a structure, as though holding, say, a cube, rather than seeing one. Though, in my own experience of it, it isn't as simple a shape as that, or as a 3-dimensional shape... if you were to add on a dimension for time and potential, then 'shape' could be more accurate. Like a 5-dimensional hypercube, perhaps, but I don't know anyone who can describe the feeling of holding a 5d hyper-anything in their awareness or their hands.

One disadvantage of my raw-thought approach though, is that there is really no useful vocabulary for relating perceptions dealt with on that level. It's outside the common ground of human verbal interaction, which is almost unilaterally focused on describing things through the context of the physical senses. So as far as sharing perceptions, things are "mostly" ineffable.

I have often thought of trying to adapt these concepts to new words, or even a new language with additional connotations which can incorporate this subtler dimension of experience. Trying usually ends up leaving elements out, though, but then I think this is the nature of language itself. Although some languages do have words for such things - Chi, for instance, when understood from the ideogram that represents it visually, takes on a more concrete nature through it's representation that can be shared among individuals; in english, however, we simply adopt the word 'chi' without the benefit of the ideogram, and so limit the understanding a person can gain of this concept through language. The pictograms I use for short hand have magical significance for me, but through intentional abstraction and don't visually depict a philosophical theme. I do wonder if there is a chinese character which does, however, as the long history of Taoist writings must have necessitated some kind of depiction of the concept of abstract intangibles. I wonder....

In any case, I was unable to even discuss these things through analogy until I was well into my teens because of this, and I suspect it is similar for other very young people; until there is enough knowledge available to draw the right kinds of parallels to common experience, it just isn't possible to express these concepts verbally. Music, I think, would be a somewhat better medium but would be so esoteric that although it could possibly be expressed it may not be able to be communicated that way in practical terms.

I apply your approach in interacting with my deity (as well as a more tantric approach). basking in the depth of her essence, and blurring the lines of imagined separation of being. in that sense, your approach here is a fundamental part of my own practices related to the great work.

In part because I don't work with deity very often, I had not actually approached the idea of applying the principle this way. I have worked with some spirits in what must be the same or a similar way, as often what they will teach is not verbal, visual, or any other sensory analog, but is usually delivered in 'packets' of knowledge - a sudden awareness of something new. I shall have to expand my approach, thank you for mentioning this.

I wish so much of this realm of experience were universally common. Imagine the world if everyone was deeply aware of the presence of other beings, and such depth of sharing was so commonplace there was a whole topic in language covering these experiences.

peace

Generally with me I get partial and isolated insights on someone, then 'boom'. By 'boom' I mean that the picture (generally not a visual picture) comes together and takes form. Some people might just call it insight. It seems to me like a gestalt. Gestalt is a German word meaning the whole shape or thing. It is hard to explain but I get pieces of it, then it comes together in a packet. Generally it isn't visual and it isn't verbal but it is understandable to me. It seems to me as if it is a feeling or sensation but the sensation has a associated meaning to it. hmm It does sound crazy when I try to explain this phenomena but it is how I perceive it. Most often it has to do with someone's health issues like while I'm treating them but it might be someone's thoughts or responses. It was a martial arts master I know, Paul Stiles, who calls it "reading spirit."

Vagrant your post both troubles me as well as gladdens me. When you write these things I sometimes wonder if eventually you'll go entirely Eastern as your approach and even techniques have always lent itself to that side of things anyways. Of course I'm always troubled by your sometime wandering language but you've got a lot better over the years, a lot!

However, I'm very glad to hear that all the years of being alert and as aware as possible are starting to materialize for you. What you talk about is simply the signs of a focused and trained mind coming to a fruition. What you describe is what I would simply call the 'flow', that ever moving, ever present weave within which life floats in and which time and it's ineffable knowledge resides. I would warn you this one thing, there's no need for you to tap another person face to face for this, in fact that may become a dangerous venture eventually. It may be easier at first, also given your livlihood it makes sense you would first become aware at such a point, but the truth is that you can tap into that knowledge from distance, the 'matrix' of understanding with which you speak is available to any of us at any time.

I do feel that experience in trying to convey these things has given me a better ability to express them! I do recognize that being physically approximate to the thin itself is not necessary, and over time have been more able to access the person or other object at a distance; I believe this technique will develop in that direction as I work with it. At the moment t seems I am better able to assimilate a physical operation with a physical example, if that makes sense. Even though the process is not physical, it is currently a different process for me than, for instance, grasping the gnostic truth of an immaterial concept. Not sure how that translates.

I do have a gradual transition to a more complete eastern approach. I have always floated between eastern and western technique, as I was conditioned in the west but have a less structured initial experience from childhood. I'd like to think the 'final' product will be a more complete marriage of the two, but am not intentionally directing my evolution in one direction or the other.

Thank you for the affirmation, it has been helpful to see other practitioners are experienced with the same process, even with other terminology.

I don't think that it's possible to label the breadth of such perceptions. I mean if I were to say "i sense grfrgrejk in you..." what would that mean really? I could try to describe what that means in more familiar terms, but then I have kinda defeated the purpose of new and unfamiliar terms. It is a limitation of lingual communication that things which lack context in the common ground of the species, simply fall outside of language's capacity to accurately describe. Well, i say 'accurately describe' but then really, every spoken or typed word is a symbol for an idea, and necessarily always fails to contain the full depth of context and subtlety within the original thought, so I hesitate to even use 'words' and 'accuracy' in the same sentence. It has been suggested by some monks that all words are warped with pretext. I would say that a label for something, anything, is always a gross oversimplification (by design) of the thing it attempts to convey. And that this applies to verbs just as much as nouns.

Consider for example "a child" simple enough label, but does such a label really contain the full depth of meaning and complexity and treasure that a parent would have for their own child? Or "a country"... ALL words function like this though.

I would argue for a divorce of the mind from lingual cognition. Further, I'd argue that visualized thought is only 'somewhat better', and still falls vastly short of the full intricacy of any quintessence.

Literally the problem is in trying to quantify such perception at all. I do not believe it is possible. And I think that the attempt focuses the mind in the wrong direction, back towards quantified thought, and away from raw perception.


"What is your name?" I asked.
"I have many names. But what are sounds or symbols compared to the entirety of my being which is open before you?" She replied

and in that moment I had a visceral sensation of how the human conditioned mind quantifies things, and then fails to see the original true thing. the 'unsimplified' thing. placing the label on a pedestal, and practicing idolatry towards it, while ignoring the actuality of the thing labeled.

years later, this would prove to be foundational concept study, for working to move the seat of sentient consciousness out of the internal dialog, away from the internal forum of quantifying things by way of words or imagery or shapes. To better prepare the mind for immaterial existence, and improve the ability to interface with it. to move cognition and perception towards a mode of operation which defies quantifying, and is "not finite", nor limited to a localized concept of self.

all of which is a long winded way of saying, such intimate and vast perceptions do not need quantifying or labeling. and if you are on an enlightenment or great work path, doing so could conceivably even be counterproductive. even beyond your own path, if you give something a label, people who have no true sensation of it will claim ownership of the term, and it will become at most a tool for self aggrandizement. or more likely it will simply fail as a descriptive label for lack of genuine common ground.

I too am tempted greatly by the scientific mind's desire to quantify and classify and form a structured model. Unfortunately, structures are finite, and I think the bottom line in enlightenment is a move towards becoming spiritually and mentally non-finite.


on distance; the perception of distance is really more like a trick of the eye when watching the shadows on a cave's wall, mistaking these for reality itself. here there and everywhere are more or less all "here" (more or less). so yeah, perception across longer distances is perfectly doable. worth noting... if you are trying to perceive a particular living person across distance, then real-time communication (chat, phone, etc) is helpful for tuning in to their unique ah... 'frequency' (out of all those myriad frequencies populating this planet). I have no idea what would be 'dangerous' about perceiving someone deeply in a face to face setting though (i don't get that). but then i don't grok fear in general anymore, and 'danger' is kind of it's cousin. but trying to imagine what someone might find dangerous or threatening about doing it face to face... i am coming up blank.

eastern, western... truth isn't really regional. i lean eastern in ideology, but I like Nietzsche much more than say Confucious... but really, i don't lean eastern, some philosophies simply coincide with my path and ideologies and learning process. Saying i lean eastern is just an oversimplification for the sake of giving a vague idea where I come from ideologically. Really my path is Kathrynist, regionally that's centered in st louis, US, and has only one prominent member. anything else is really just source material.
(well, ok, maybe more centered in the abyss, since that is sort of my mental dojo of choice. or rather the mental dojo of choice of my mentor)
i guess my point is, that i question the wisdom of trying to fit into any particular peg hole, within the varied dogmas of our fellow hairless apes.
just be you, and do it magnificently (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

or something like that,

This post has been edited by Kath: Jul 30 2012, 11:43 AM

The past eight months or so I've become friends with a woman who I immediately found interesting but didn't initially know why. She is another witch who just moved to our area and is hanging out with some of my other witchy friends. I did notice that I could feel her spiritual energy very easily. My first thought was that she had very strong energy, but upon closer examination and a bit of thought realized that it wasn't that her energy was especially strong exactly. What it seems to be is that her energy is quite similar to mine. Her vibrations are fairly high, but she isn't bursting with energy by any means. She seems to be being drained by stress or something. But I can read her energy more easily than other people because hers seems to harmonize or resonate with mine. I asked a common friend, Janet, whether she noticed anything different about this woman, Jill's, energy. Janet didn't notice anything so I have to conclude that it is my perception due to a similarity in our energies. It has gotten me re-examining my ideas about how energy flows, pulsates and vibrates. I'd like to talk her into getting on the table for me sometime, but for now I seem to be able to read her from across the room well enough. Dreamer mentions being able to read people at a distance--say in another city or country. This is true as long as there is some solid connection like a voice on a phone or skype, or a recent photo. But I do prefer to work through physical contact as I get the details clearer that way. I generally focus on how the energy moves, the processes rather than the features of energetic anatomy. Seeing how the energy moves or doesn't move is what tells me the most. Occasionally I will get information from spirits in addition.

It is interesting to me because when we are hanging out I can sense her energy in great detail without even putting myself into a meditative mindset. It is allowing me to learn more about reading spirit. I'm reminded of reading the story of a fellow who had an accident and had a hole created through his abdomen to his stomach which allowed him to function but never closed up. This happened in the 1800s when doctors didn't know a lot about the process of digestion. His doctor was able to look into his stomach and watch as the food was digested, thus learning new things about the digestion process and giving him material for some medical papers which were later published. Yes, weird side story, but it illustrates that this is an unusual opportunity to similarly get a look inside someone.

Goibnu, I sympathize with you about working face to face, especially in your circumstance when you're attempting to actually figure out the way a person's energies are affecting you. I'll say though, that if your relationships gains the strength of time it will be worth learning to find her energies from distance. If your energies truly sync, you won't need much, here the use of name is a classic way of calling. You may well have met someone that you can perfect certain things with, perhaps telepathy or astral projection, or as you say reading the spirit. That's the thing, we sometimes forget that a person, a path, a technique, isn't always just a single point. What starts with reading the spirit, in all actuality may be just a glimmer of our minds awakening to something much more encompassing.