Star-signs!

[Ramesses II]

To set something straight : regression is NOT under hypnosis. You perfectly know where you are, who you are, what the other people say, what you say, etc. When you're under hypnosis you don't know that anymore.

[Robert Vermaat]

That's not the standard method which has been used for about 30 years now.
So how does non-hypnosis regression sessions go? How can the therapist get you to go back to these memories if not under some form of hypnosis?

[Arthes]

Greetings,
there is a book by Lee Everett (Kenny Everett's ex wife) called Celebrity Regressions, which I have just re-read again.
Lee, a respected Regressional Therapist used meditation to regress her subjects and the results are very interesting and thought provoking...
[url:1frbkbxi]http://www.netstoreusa.com/phbooks/057/0572022972.shtml[/url]
(I think there was a recent television series about something similar)
More about Lee....[url:1frbkbxi]http://www.i-c-m.org.uk/journal/2006/feb/a01.htm[/url]
[url:1frbkbxi]http://www.obsidian.gb.com/[/url]
regards
Arthes

[Ramesses II]

That's not the standard method which has been used for about 30 years now.
So how does non-hypnosis regression sessions go? How can the therapist get you to go back to these memories if not under some form of hypnosis?

You've got to stop your thinking ... which is very hard to do. Then you just have to answer the therapist his questions with the things you see with your eyes closed. For example, if you see a green elephant, you just have to say 'I see a green elephant'. You may not think either it's right or wrong, just to say what you see. When you're under hypnosis you can't remember anything of what happened, and that's just the intention of regression. To remember those things. You're mind isn't just about this life, your mind remembers even things from a past life That's why regression is not under hypnosis. The 'good ones' don't put you under hypnosis.

[Arthes]

[You're mind isn't just about this life, your mind remembers even things from a past life

Thats true, quite often young children (including relatives of mine by all accounts) talk about 'before' mentioning places and people they have never seen.
In recent years tests have been carried out on foetus in the womb, which seem to indicate that the foetus are dreaming...but what of - a previous existance?
There have been well documented cases of young children recognising their partners, siblings and families from previous existances and describing accurately a district they have not visited...and I have heard of children telling people that they knew them from a time when they were adults too....probably reincarnated into the same family group or/and look similar to how they did in a previous existance.
Whether it is a genuine reincarnation or a shared genetic memory with your ancestors, it is still a past life....I don't know how much research has been carried out to ascertain how many regressions have been non ancestral and how many have...of course in some cases the reincarnation takes place within the same family or social grouping, so you can be a reincarnation of your great aunt or reincarnate as your own grandchild (after passing on, of course)
I mentioned on another forum, that if people were found who carried the DNA of certain people, they could possibly be regressed down their genetic ancestry line to view the past through the eyes of their distant ancestor...so it is feasible I could be regressed to view the life of my ancestors back in the 17th century and find out information I do not have access to, ie siblings names, the name of their dwellinghouse, etc. If I can not get the information..then I am creating an image from my own mind. If I do get the information and after checking, it seems to be correct, I have truly regressed...!
Regards
Arthes

[Robert Vermaat]

When you're under hypnosis you can't remember anything of what happened, and that's just the intention of regression. To remember those things. [..] The 'good ones' don't put you under hypnosis.

I don't quite agree with that. Remembering is possible, it depends on what you are allowed to remember or not. It's usually agreed before the session. The 'good ones' only use it for real therapy. remembering past lives can often be very distressing.

Thats true, quite often young children (including relatives of mine by all accounts) talk about 'before' mentioning places and people they have never seen.

I know my daughter did, although it remeined vague and we never pressed the issue. She's all forgotten about it now.

There have been well documented cases of young children recognising their partners, siblings and families from previous existances and describing accurately a district they have not visited...and I have heard of children telling people that they knew them from a time when they were adults too....probably reincarnated into the same family group or/and look similar to how they did in a previous existance.

Indeed there have, very well documented by serious scientists. Although most cases seem to occur in societies where reincarnation is accepted in culture (India of course and among the Druse in Lebanon), they also occur elsewhere. Of course, experiences are best documented because the level of acceptance is much higher.
One very well-known case is of a low-born girl who was able to prove his previous existance as a high-born male (I think it was) until being murdered. His 'old' family accepted him/her back again. Very weird if you're not used to such way of thinking.

[Ramesses II]

Indeed there have, very well documented by serious scientists. Although most cases seem to occur in societies where reincarnation is accepted in culture (India of course and among the Druse in Lebanon), they also occur elsewhere. Of course, experiences are best documented because the level of acceptance is much higher.
One very well-known case is of a low-born girl who was able to prove his previous existance as a high-born male (I think it was) until being murdered. His 'old' family accepted him/her back again. Very weird if you're not used to such way of thinking.

I've seen a documentary once on National Geographic Channel about a 6 year old boy in that area, who asks his parents to visit some complete strangers on the other side of the country. Appearantly the boy was in a previous life a football star and family to those strangers. They confronted him with his sister from his past life, and he could tell this that happened years before he was born, which were true (told by the sister).

[Dan Howard]

How come the vast majority who claim to have a past life were rich and/or famous in that life?

[Dan Howard]

Regarding astrology I have a few questions.

Why is the sky divided into nice neat monthly segments when in reality the period can vary from as little as a week (e.g. Scorpio) up to two months (e.g. Virgo).

If astrological signs are fixed to regions of the sky then how come Pisces is a day longer every fourth year, except on centuries, unless it is a fourth century?

Why is it that horoscopes are still accurate even though the constellations today are about a month behind where they were when the calendar was fixed?

Why is the thirteenth constellation (Ophiuchus, the "Whale") ignored when studying astrology even though the sun can sometimes enter this constellation?

How does this mystical astrological influence work? Is it stronger for nearer objects? If so then why does Pluto have an effect but the thousands of objects in the asteroid belt not? If distance is not relevant then why is not every star (and planet) in the galaxy taken into account?

I can find half a dozen scientific tests indicating that astrology is nothing but suggestion and random chance - people believe that any random horoscope given to them is their own or are unable to pick their own out of a random selection handed to them. Are there any tests giving a positive result?

This is my particular favourite:
In 1979 Michel Gauquelin put an advertisement in Ici-Paris offering a free horoscope. Recipients were asked to reply saying how accurate they and their friends found the horoscope. Of the first 150 replies, 94% percent said it was accurate as did 90% of their friends and family. Unfortunately, they all got the same horoscope, that of Dr. Petiot, a notorious mass murderer.

[Robert Vermaat]

How come the vast majority who claim to have a past life were rich and/or famous in that life?

Not in the India/Lebanese research reports.
Not the the 'serious' European research.
Maybe only in the 'popular' reports?

[Ramesses II]

How come the vast majority who claim to have a past life were rich and/or famous in that life?

My past lifes were both rich as poor... (I know I am crazy)

I can find half a dozen scientific tests indicating that astrology is nothing but suggestion and random chance - people believe that any random horoscope given to them is their own or are unable to pick their own out of a random selection handed to them. Are there any tests giving a positive result?

How many suggestions and random chances can you find in science? "There might be ... there or there, but we're not sure of that" and so on

This is my particular favourite:
In 1979 Michel Gauquelin put an advertisement in Ici-Paris offering a free horoscope. Recipients were asked to reply saying how accurate they and their friends found the horoscope. Of the first 150 replies, 94% percent said it was accurate as did 90% of their friends and family. Unfortunately, they all got the same horoscope, that of Dr. Petiot, a notorious mass murderer.

Good example of a fake one who's only out for money.

[Goffredo]

I'm back. Couldn't resist.

It is interesting how we work. The human mind is wondrous and complex. We are full of talents. In particular we have a real talent for believing things. For some this drive to believe a belief means that belief is actually founded. Hmmm. For others, like me, this drive to believe is wondrous but also something to be suspicious of. We see shapes in clouds; we see forms in shapeless things; we see causes where there is randomness; we make connections between independent events; we believe stories that cannot be verified simply because we like the sound of the story that touches our emotions. We are so wonderful and yet, AND YET that does not make our beliefs true.

I do not believe the "beliefs" described above. Indeed I honestly believe that I am being far less ideological than those that claim to believe the "beliefs" described above. Those that believe have ideologically decided to believe and have ideologically decided to downplay rationality and "science". They claim to be open and yet they, ironically, are the rigid ones and are sadly blind. They see nothing because they only see what they wish to see. They see shapes and don't see the clouds. But what is more sad is that they see shapes but do not notice how their minds work. We are wondrous and it is worth studying how we tick. Turn the lights on. Don't live in darkness.

If you believe something, ask yourself "How do I know it is true?" If you brush this question aside as not pertinent then you are a hopeless case and are very human! We are all, in different ways, hopeless cases! Nothing personal. Just philosophy, as old as consciousness.

[Ramesses II]

I'm back. Couldn't resist.

It is interesting how we work. The human mind is wonderous and complex. We are full of talents. In particular we have a real talent for believing things. For some this drive to believe a belief means that belief is actually founded. Hmmm. For others, like me, this drive to believe is wonderous but also something to be suspicious of. We see shapes in clouds; we see forms in shapeless things; we see causes where there is randomness; we make connections between independent events; we believe stories that cann't be verified simply because we like the sound of the story that touches our emotions. We are so wonderful and yet, AND YET that does not make our beliefs true.

I do not believe the "beliefs" described above. Indeed I honestly believe that I am being far less ideological than those that claim to believe the "beliefs" described above. Those that believe have ideologically decided to believe and have ideologically decided to downplay rationality and "science". They claim to be open and yet they, ironically, are the rigid ones and are sadly blind. They see nothing because they only see what they wish to see. They see shapes and don't see the clouds. But what is more sad is that they see shapes but do not notice how their minds work. We are wonderous and it is worth studying how we tick. Turn the lights on. Don't live in darkness.

If you believe something, ask yourself "How do I know it is true?" If you brush this question aside as not pertinent then you are a hopeless case and are very human! We are all, in different ways, hopeless cases! Nothing personal. Just philosophy, as old as consciousness.

Here we go again :lol: :?

We're all blind in some way. Many of us don't like to admit they are right or wrong in many cases, but then again we can ask: what is right and what is wrong ? What is right to believe something and what's wrong about it. You guys don't want to believe things like that. OK, fine by me. But are you judging the people who believe in some sort of God too ? Basically it's all the same, you believe in something. Whether it's there or not. You can't judge people on their beliefs, as like in the case of religion. Take a look at both extremes : to someone Human X is mentally insane and shouldn't be allowed to walk over the street, to others that same guy is a hero. Who's there to judge ?

[Dan Howard]

Good example of a fake one who's only out for money.

How was he making money? The horoscope he provided was free. This was an experiment specifically designed to demonstrate that astrology is rubbish and to embarrass those who think otherwise. He succeeded IMO. If you believe otherwise perhaps you could answer one of my questions.

[Goffredo]

In many cases you might be right in asking "what is right and what is wrong". A good and wise philosophical question. But don't stop in looking for an answer or worse propose a non-answer and simply say that is there are no such things as "right" and "wrong". THAT is bad philosophy. It gets you no where and you are simply "sticking your head in a hole", "turning the lights off". Of course you may do as you wish.

Not all claims are on an equal level. Some are good and useful and get you somewhere, others are just bla bla. There ARE some cases were an answer can be given to the question as whether something is right or wrong. Energy may be transfered in many ways, but telepathy is a bogus idea. Life is a complex and in many ways mysterious phenomena, but reincarnation is a bogus idea. Religion is a very human necessity but to believe the world is 6000 years old and was simply made to look as if it were billions is not even right or wrong, it is so philosophically dishonest to even be considered.

To summarize: some claims can be interesting and provocative and may benefit from many doubts. Other claims are simply wrong. Others yet are simply dishonest. I am not saying that the person making the claim is dishonest like Al Capone, but that the claim doesn't allow an open discussion. A claim such as "the world just looks to be billions of year old" might be tooted by an honest and sincere person, but his claim is intellectually a rip off. It steals me the possibility of making any form of argument. The same is true of claims that hide behind the notion that "science does not explain everything". Science does NOT explain everything! Indeed scientists never say that! Indeed those that say science "wants to explain everything" are those that have no scientific background.

To conclude my position: Some strange claim can be unexplained but still be CONSISTENT with what science knows with a high degree of certainty. Such a claim would not be as great problem but as a challenge and it would be interesting to study. Other strange claims are INCONSISTENT with what little we know. Here is where I can REASONABLY state that that strange idea is wrong! I put the word "reasonably" in CAPITAL LETTERS because the word plays a central role. If you question the usefulness or soundness of the notion of "reasonable", be careful how you do it. You might be risking a fall into the categories of "uselessness" and "dishonesty".