The ritualistic magic associated with the creation of a
group mind calls for the thirteenth member of a formed group of twelve to be a stranger, in order to stimulate a
particular type of vibrational energy in the other twelve
members of the group stimulated by the presence of the stranger.
Suspicion generated by an outsider appears to raise the energy level of the whole group enough for the creation of a docetic personification of the group mind to bind them together in their group intent. A Messiah that would save the whole of them.
The thirteenth member, as a stranger in the group of twelve, acts as the rabble rouser to generate what ever energies rise to the top when suspicions of the stranger's true motives suddenly threatens betrayal of the group bond.
The word rabblerouser originated as the name of a design feature of rotating ovens mainly used to roast food products like coffee beans and peanuts. Peanut roasters are a fairly common sight at some public gatherings. The beans and peanuts, called the rabble, are placed inside a closed rotating barrel that slowly turns over a permanent source of controllable heat to
get the value added end product.
The design feature of this type of oven called the
rabblerouser is engineered to accomplish about the same results the agitator blades in a washing machine does. The agitator blades in a washing machine insure that the clothes being washed keep moving around inside the washer so that all parts of the clothing get equal exposure to the washing process.
In rotating ovens, products like coffee beans have a
tendency to slide along the inside surface of the rotating barrel which results in only one side of the bean getting fully roasted. The rouser is a bar or blade that is permanently attached to the inside wall of the barrel and acts as an obstacle for the sliding beans and agitates them so that all sides of the beans will receive optimal exposure to the heat source, and thus insuring an evenly roasted product.
Another description associated with the term rabblerouser identifies a person or persons who stirs other people up through agitation. In the old western movies some of these classical oaters were filmed in black and white, and featured mob scenes where a crowd of ordinarily good citizens would be brainwashed
into hanging the bad guy sitting in the jailhouse, before
the crooked local politicians set him scot free for bribe
money. The movies always seemed to feature the firebrands who whipped the townspeople into their murderous rage by indignantly and belligerently urging their followers to take the law into their own hands. The townspeople in these movies represented the rabble, and the firebrands who whipped them into a frenzy represented the action of the rabblerousers.
Every group appears to need an element of cohesiveness that defines the group purpose and defines the groups purpose. The rabblerousers put it all together and integrates aim that makes the mob tick. In rotating ovens it's the design feature called a rabblerouser that performs that function.
In dubious political situations, however, the results of rabblerousing can be unpredictable at best. Often enow, the end results of rabblerousing in the old western movies depended on the steely-blue careactor of the white-hatted Sheriff, and his trustworthy but sometime clumsy deputies.
Any gross miscalculations by the rabblerouser in regard to the expected response of the good guys can resolve to a shameful disintergration of the spirit of the group, and sometime a punch in the nose or worse for the rabblerouser's troubles. Such humiliation effectively puts the mob mentality genie back in the bottle and corks it, leaving the disenfranchised rabble to wander the world aimlessly like the lost and scattered tribes of the damned.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
My experience in this arena leads me to think that to call this endeavor a "test" promulgates needless barriers to overcome in a somewhat nebulous situation.
The obstacle I see is being in this state without
recognizing the possibility of exercising volition. In deep
state, disconnected in some way from personality traits and the availability of memory in the regular way, that the type of memory accessed during the experience of the state is separate from our memories of the sensory experienced world of appearance (Whatever in hell THAT means?)
It's like shifting to the superconscious or global
perspective one moves to an undifferentiated awareness which is all-inclusive and everything is seen as oneself. Even if that unity exists perceptually as a collage of our rare moments, however obtained, in a different world.
It would seem as if the experimenters would be asking their subjects for specific data in that undifferentiated state. And if the experimenters themselves are unfamiliar with the unboundedness of the global state (which is hard for me to fathom since a part of us is there all the time.), then eliciting the specific response they desire, either yeah or nay, could present a helplessness that transforms into an inept haplessness, and eventually to an abandonment of
the integrity of their purpose in conducting the experiment in the first place.
The last exchanges Brian and I posted centered around my asking him some questions I hoped would bring a response that more clearly delineated his true intent in writing the things that he wrote. His responses really pleased me. I felt as though he answered me with deep sincerity, and though I suspect there is much more to be explored in
himself to come to completeness with how he really feels, I understood his earlier comments more succinctly than before. I like to ask a lot of leading questions, in any case, and I do so referencing the Golden Rule, because I want the other to ask me leading questions to get more lucid descriptions
in regard to my own experiences. Brian asked me a few
questions in his responses, but I felt his questions were
really his way of priming his own pump to come up with a more considered description of his true intent. I enjoyed having this exchange with Brian. Since we've
broken the ice with each other, I expect we can do each
other a great service without too much distraction to the group as a whole.
Back to the point I have run around in circles trying to get to. The real problem with the stated experiment is that the experimenters may not have enough familiarity with the state they are attempting to get the answers from. Like the license plate discussion about being able to recall something totally familiar, the number and letters we see on a regular basis, I said that I could get anybody to remember anybody else's license plate numbers if they had ever physically perceived them. That's because I have developed an ability to elicit the specific scenarios within another's experience field to bring their attention to the
information I will recover with them. It took me a lifetime of dealing with people in altered states, generally in hypnosis, to understand what has to be there to get them to understand they can act with volition in this state. It appears similar to getting things to happen in lucid dreaming. First and foremost, one has to become aware that they are indeed dreaming. Then, at the point of this realization, to realize that they can effect the outcomes witnessed in the dream process. That's asking a lot from oneself, especially at the onset.
The hypnosis I do with others amounts to a pre-entry
discussion about what we are attempting to accomplish by us entering state together. I don't force people to enter the state by trickery (Although I can and possess considerable resources to bring this to fruition.), the process I find most useful is just to facilitate them entering the trance state as openly and as consciously as possible in that moment, and then ask them questions about what they are experiencing as we go along. Then, as the trust and the bond
between us develops, they access the needed state pretty much on their own and tell me where they are at with it. It's not as if they suddenly become Chatty Cathys', I constantly ask them, "Tell me what you see.", "What's happening?" I attempt to keep the communication between us to what they tell me in response to my questions.
At this point, about all I help with is remind them of what we set out to do in this encounter. This is a very necessary thing to do. A person who enters this state of their own volition seems to have to release their awareness of their ability to make things happen in that state and so when they get to the place where they have all the tools they need to do work in this state, they forget why they went there and that they can make things happen. That's all I'm there for.
to ask them what they 'see' there, and to direct them to go ahead and prove to themselves that they can indeed exercise volition to accomplish their stated goals. In the past, I have taped our pre-entry discussion about what we want to happen when they are in state, and let their original purpose, as stated in their own voice, guide them to getting the results they want. If they get confused or stuck in their intent, then it's my ability to recognise this and put them back on their own chosen path once again that allows a
continuation of the flow.
In any case, however, the conscious awareness that they can act with volition in an undifferentiated global perspective is a tricky business. To merely fill out a few forms about what happened after their leaving their body, or to ask a prearranged question set of a hundred different people will not, in my opinion, get useful results. Each person who enters such states will create or maybe recreate from that undifferentiated perspective only that which will please the questioner, and usually just to get their approval so that they can feel that they have done right by God and man. The
data provided in this set and setting can appear unreliable and without achieving the desired end.
The real determinant is always the person who asks the experiencer for information regarding what they "saw" during the experience. Not only does this require a sensitivity of the condition of the experiencer and how they personally deal with being in a open-ended global state in which their regular reference points are not there to guide them, but to be able to ask them to describe what they do "see" around
them in a way that doesn't change the experience radically enough to form a reliable assessment of our bond. Like in dreams, the entire apperception of 'wot's sot before you' can change with lightening speed of the most instantaneous sort, and suddenly the experiencer is not dealing with the same environment the last question related to. The questioner has to be able to recognize the signs that this is going on, and abandon the previous effort with the same kind of immediacy displayed by the experiencer. Why bother?
It's gone. It's not that the abandoned scenario cannot be reapproached, but it's just a matter of timing. Attempting to get someone in a deep trance to switch horses in mainstream without understanding why they must forego that which confronts them in the immediacy of now seems to strain the rapport and can cause unintentional erosion of the bond between one and the other.
Just about every person I have hypnotized has told me of their own impetus that they felt like I was "there" with them, and that I am "seeing" the same things they are, except that I am relating to what they experience as if what exists in that state possesses a more differentiated pattern, and that my questions or directions for them to look at the "things" of that world is consistent with what they would have done if they could have only thought of doing it.
But, this is determined in mutual collaboration. between
friends as it were, and with the practice of patience, and open discussion of any arising obstacles, or the seeming distractions of unrelated, but joyous intercessions of recalled material serendipitously entering the picture (which can be interesting to both parties) . In such a test as has been described, the rapport necessary to ask each individual to look for the planted material in a useful way that will get the desired results of proving or disproving such things are possible cannot get done on an impersonal level of communication.
I think the problem with proving this stuff is that the
people who have the kind of experiences needed to elicit the information in a useful way, don't need the proof. I might be willing to bet you good money that I can elicit experiences you have had in the past, that made perfect sense in the specious present in which you experienced them, but have not been able to access said experiences again due to your not realizing in real time that you have the inherent ability to make it available to recall on your own. I think you realizing that you have forgotten more than many people ever gnew would be more convincing to you in a personal sense than any "test" ever created.
The obstacle I see is being in this state without
recognizing the possibility of exercising volition. In deep
state, disconnected in some way from personality traits and the availability of memory in the regular way, that the type of memory accessed during the experience of the state is separate from our memories of the sensory experienced world of appearance (Whatever in hell THAT means?)
It's like shifting to the superconscious or global
perspective one moves to an undifferentiated awareness which is all-inclusive and everything is seen as oneself. Even if that unity exists perceptually as a collage of our rare moments, however obtained, in a different world.
It would seem as if the experimenters would be asking their subjects for specific data in that undifferentiated state. And if the experimenters themselves are unfamiliar with the unboundedness of the global state (which is hard for me to fathom since a part of us is there all the time.), then eliciting the specific response they desire, either yeah or nay, could present a helplessness that transforms into an inept haplessness, and eventually to an abandonment of
the integrity of their purpose in conducting the experiment in the first place.
The last exchanges Brian and I posted centered around my asking him some questions I hoped would bring a response that more clearly delineated his true intent in writing the things that he wrote. His responses really pleased me. I felt as though he answered me with deep sincerity, and though I suspect there is much more to be explored in
himself to come to completeness with how he really feels, I understood his earlier comments more succinctly than before. I like to ask a lot of leading questions, in any case, and I do so referencing the Golden Rule, because I want the other to ask me leading questions to get more lucid descriptions
in regard to my own experiences. Brian asked me a few
questions in his responses, but I felt his questions were
really his way of priming his own pump to come up with a more considered description of his true intent. I enjoyed having this exchange with Brian. Since we've
broken the ice with each other, I expect we can do each
other a great service without too much distraction to the group as a whole.
Back to the point I have run around in circles trying to get to. The real problem with the stated experiment is that the experimenters may not have enough familiarity with the state they are attempting to get the answers from. Like the license plate discussion about being able to recall something totally familiar, the number and letters we see on a regular basis, I said that I could get anybody to remember anybody else's license plate numbers if they had ever physically perceived them. That's because I have developed an ability to elicit the specific scenarios within another's experience field to bring their attention to the
information I will recover with them. It took me a lifetime of dealing with people in altered states, generally in hypnosis, to understand what has to be there to get them to understand they can act with volition in this state. It appears similar to getting things to happen in lucid dreaming. First and foremost, one has to become aware that they are indeed dreaming. Then, at the point of this realization, to realize that they can effect the outcomes witnessed in the dream process. That's asking a lot from oneself, especially at the onset.
The hypnosis I do with others amounts to a pre-entry
discussion about what we are attempting to accomplish by us entering state together. I don't force people to enter the state by trickery (Although I can and possess considerable resources to bring this to fruition.), the process I find most useful is just to facilitate them entering the trance state as openly and as consciously as possible in that moment, and then ask them questions about what they are experiencing as we go along. Then, as the trust and the bond
between us develops, they access the needed state pretty much on their own and tell me where they are at with it. It's not as if they suddenly become Chatty Cathys', I constantly ask them, "Tell me what you see.", "What's happening?" I attempt to keep the communication between us to what they tell me in response to my questions.
At this point, about all I help with is remind them of what we set out to do in this encounter. This is a very necessary thing to do. A person who enters this state of their own volition seems to have to release their awareness of their ability to make things happen in that state and so when they get to the place where they have all the tools they need to do work in this state, they forget why they went there and that they can make things happen. That's all I'm there for.
to ask them what they 'see' there, and to direct them to go ahead and prove to themselves that they can indeed exercise volition to accomplish their stated goals. In the past, I have taped our pre-entry discussion about what we want to happen when they are in state, and let their original purpose, as stated in their own voice, guide them to getting the results they want. If they get confused or stuck in their intent, then it's my ability to recognise this and put them back on their own chosen path once again that allows a
continuation of the flow.
In any case, however, the conscious awareness that they can act with volition in an undifferentiated global perspective is a tricky business. To merely fill out a few forms about what happened after their leaving their body, or to ask a prearranged question set of a hundred different people will not, in my opinion, get useful results. Each person who enters such states will create or maybe recreate from that undifferentiated perspective only that which will please the questioner, and usually just to get their approval so that they can feel that they have done right by God and man. The
data provided in this set and setting can appear unreliable and without achieving the desired end.
The real determinant is always the person who asks the experiencer for information regarding what they "saw" during the experience. Not only does this require a sensitivity of the condition of the experiencer and how they personally deal with being in a open-ended global state in which their regular reference points are not there to guide them, but to be able to ask them to describe what they do "see" around
them in a way that doesn't change the experience radically enough to form a reliable assessment of our bond. Like in dreams, the entire apperception of 'wot's sot before you' can change with lightening speed of the most instantaneous sort, and suddenly the experiencer is not dealing with the same environment the last question related to. The questioner has to be able to recognize the signs that this is going on, and abandon the previous effort with the same kind of immediacy displayed by the experiencer. Why bother?
It's gone. It's not that the abandoned scenario cannot be reapproached, but it's just a matter of timing. Attempting to get someone in a deep trance to switch horses in mainstream without understanding why they must forego that which confronts them in the immediacy of now seems to strain the rapport and can cause unintentional erosion of the bond between one and the other.
Just about every person I have hypnotized has told me of their own impetus that they felt like I was "there" with them, and that I am "seeing" the same things they are, except that I am relating to what they experience as if what exists in that state possesses a more differentiated pattern, and that my questions or directions for them to look at the "things" of that world is consistent with what they would have done if they could have only thought of doing it.
But, this is determined in mutual collaboration. between
friends as it were, and with the practice of patience, and open discussion of any arising obstacles, or the seeming distractions of unrelated, but joyous intercessions of recalled material serendipitously entering the picture (which can be interesting to both parties) . In such a test as has been described, the rapport necessary to ask each individual to look for the planted material in a useful way that will get the desired results of proving or disproving such things are possible cannot get done on an impersonal level of communication.
I think the problem with proving this stuff is that the
people who have the kind of experiences needed to elicit the information in a useful way, don't need the proof. I might be willing to bet you good money that I can elicit experiences you have had in the past, that made perfect sense in the specious present in which you experienced them, but have not been able to access said experiences again due to your not realizing in real time that you have the inherent ability to make it available to recall on your own. I think you realizing that you have forgotten more than many people ever gnew would be more convincing to you in a personal sense than any "test" ever created.
Monday, October 06, 2003
I'm getting complaints about not posting more often again. Sorry about that. I seem to be involved in some mysterious life changes that have left me wondering what's going on.
I suspect this new diet I have adapted bears some responsibility for what I'm feeling, or rather not feeling. I seem to have a lot more energy than usual and it's more difficult for me to sit still both physically and mentally to mull things over.
Recently, I downloaded a demo of a speed-reading program that I'm excited about. It's called AceReader Pro, and is the best program like this I have used. I have practiced the drills everyday for about a week now. I don't particularly like to do these drills, but it is something I think I owe myself to do.
The use of this program has pointed out very clearly that I can't read any faster than I can talk. I have the habit of subvocalizing as I read stuff, and these drills and games in the program are designed to help me get over or beyond doing this when I read, and the thing about subvocalizing is complicated by the fact that I read and think about what I'm reading at the same time, rather thna reading the material and then thinking about it. In a way, I suppose, I actually save time by reading and thinking at the same time because when I'm done reading about a subject, when I get done I'm through forever with it. I hardly ever read the same thing twice, because during my reading I consider as many relationships that already exists in my mind about the topic of my reading, and so when I get through reading, I've done everything I can do about it. Well, upon reflection, that may not be exactly true, because other life events do come up in such a way that it reminds me of what I've read previously, and I find myself re-organizing my data on the topic continually.
A couple of thoughts have come to me in regard to the possibility of my continuing to use this program and making any progress at all detaching my emotional connection to what I read. One of them is the possibility that I have the same habit of subvocalizing when I read people. Having an emotional connection to the world around me seems to be a big deal in my life. This could exist as my main way of making meaning of my relationship with the external sensory-perceived world. Learning to speed read could change or alter the way I perceive the sensory world considerably.
I have been surprised by the results of the reading comprehension tests that come with the program. Several times the program has more or less forced me to read faster than I could subvocalize. I was sure that upon these occasions I would not do well on the comprehension tests upon completion of the forced reading. I was wrong. The tests indicated I am comprehending the material, even without the emotional connection that subvocalizing gives me. I have scored 100% on several of the comprehension tests. This has made me feel a little more confident in what I'm attempting to accomplish by practicing these drills, and offers the possibility that my subvocalizing is totally unnecessary for me to understand the material. I also seem to be able to type a little faster. This is making me wonder if I can only type as fast as I can talk.
I have made a bargain with myself about this program. If I actually use the program every day and see any progress at all in my ability to read and comprehend faster, I will give it up and buy the program at the end of the thirty day trial period. It's only $50, and I say only because that's ten times less than most of the speed-reading programs I have tried before. Besides, it's the easiest to use of all the programs, and the most well-crafted program I've encountered. High quality software for a change. What's this world coming to?
I suspect this new diet I have adapted bears some responsibility for what I'm feeling, or rather not feeling. I seem to have a lot more energy than usual and it's more difficult for me to sit still both physically and mentally to mull things over.
Recently, I downloaded a demo of a speed-reading program that I'm excited about. It's called AceReader Pro, and is the best program like this I have used. I have practiced the drills everyday for about a week now. I don't particularly like to do these drills, but it is something I think I owe myself to do.
The use of this program has pointed out very clearly that I can't read any faster than I can talk. I have the habit of subvocalizing as I read stuff, and these drills and games in the program are designed to help me get over or beyond doing this when I read, and the thing about subvocalizing is complicated by the fact that I read and think about what I'm reading at the same time, rather thna reading the material and then thinking about it. In a way, I suppose, I actually save time by reading and thinking at the same time because when I'm done reading about a subject, when I get done I'm through forever with it. I hardly ever read the same thing twice, because during my reading I consider as many relationships that already exists in my mind about the topic of my reading, and so when I get through reading, I've done everything I can do about it. Well, upon reflection, that may not be exactly true, because other life events do come up in such a way that it reminds me of what I've read previously, and I find myself re-organizing my data on the topic continually.
A couple of thoughts have come to me in regard to the possibility of my continuing to use this program and making any progress at all detaching my emotional connection to what I read. One of them is the possibility that I have the same habit of subvocalizing when I read people. Having an emotional connection to the world around me seems to be a big deal in my life. This could exist as my main way of making meaning of my relationship with the external sensory-perceived world. Learning to speed read could change or alter the way I perceive the sensory world considerably.
I have been surprised by the results of the reading comprehension tests that come with the program. Several times the program has more or less forced me to read faster than I could subvocalize. I was sure that upon these occasions I would not do well on the comprehension tests upon completion of the forced reading. I was wrong. The tests indicated I am comprehending the material, even without the emotional connection that subvocalizing gives me. I have scored 100% on several of the comprehension tests. This has made me feel a little more confident in what I'm attempting to accomplish by practicing these drills, and offers the possibility that my subvocalizing is totally unnecessary for me to understand the material. I also seem to be able to type a little faster. This is making me wonder if I can only type as fast as I can talk.
I have made a bargain with myself about this program. If I actually use the program every day and see any progress at all in my ability to read and comprehend faster, I will give it up and buy the program at the end of the thirty day trial period. It's only $50, and I say only because that's ten times less than most of the speed-reading programs I have tried before. Besides, it's the easiest to use of all the programs, and the most well-crafted program I've encountered. High quality software for a change. What's this world coming to?