Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
cpjason

Quija board challenge to skeptics

301 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nucular
But this is primitive thinking, and it's high time we swept away this 19th Century idea of what consciousness is. To say that the Ouija is the ideomoter effect is to assume that the 100-year-old idea of the subconscious is correct -- but that's ridiculous.

The ideomotor effect certainly does not rely on Freudian psychology or his idea of the 'subconscious'. I don't know what books you've been reading, if any, but I think we can safely assume that they weren't psychology books.

in fact, intelligence almost certainly does not emanate from the human brain.

Or neuroscience books.

But the fact is, there is no one more at odds with psychologists than other psychologists. Carl Jung thought Freud was nuts, B.F. Skinner thought both of the above were full of it, Maslow favors his hierarchy of needs model while Carl Rogers favors his humanistic model of psychology ... and so on.

Yes, real scientists never disagree. Tell me again how Maslow and Rogers are at odds?

The late great astronomer Carl Sagan believed that all psychologists were full of crap -- and called psychology not a science at all, but pseudo-science. I recommend all here to read Sagan's book "The Demon Haunted World" where he makes a compelling and scathing attack on modern psychology as "useless."

I too recommend that book to all here. Since it's another you've clearly never read, IronGhost, I recommend it to you all the more strongly.

You know what's hilarious in all this? It's that there is almost no difference between using an Ouija Board and using a psychologist.

You can see that -- right? I mean, you ask the Ouija board a question, and it gives you an answer. You ask a psychologist a question, and guess what, he or she will give you an answer. Both of them give you information that reflects back on what you spoke to them -- you send your communication into the Ouija or the psychologist -- and communication comes back out at you -- and either way, you have to interpret that communication and make it your own.

Oh dear... you have no clue about even the basics of what modern psychology is, says or does, yet you seem so sure that you do. My advice would be to go to a bookshop; select a book with a title along the lines of Introduction to Psychology; check in the flyleaf that the publication date is at least post-1970; and then read it. Then perhaps, once you know what ideas are current, and how they were derived, you can start "sweeping them away".

There are many, many criticisms one could make of many, many aspects of modern psychology - trust me, I am a psychologist (not that non-psychologists are unable to discuss psychology, of course) - it's just that you haven't managed to make any of them. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost

From my point of view, the main reason the ideometer effect theory has to be tossed out is that there is really no subconscious mind.

One of the reasons I say that is, and as I have written about a lot here at UM, is that I have practiced Zen meditation for 27 years now -- you get a good long look at what your own mind actually is when you do this -- and slowly but surely, you can witness what you thought was your mind simply dissolve and go away.

It's like you stop having a mind and you start becoming "a process." I like what Buckminster Fuller once said: "I think I am a verb." He was onto something.

But what's interesting is that many advanced researchers are beginning to think that mind is actually nonlocal -- and that brain acts like a "lens" which is not generating it's own information, but rather reaching out and interpreting information that is "out there."

The neurologist Karl Pribam, for example, has suggested that the brain works more like a hologram and that thoughts are not stored in brain cells, but rather, thoughts are wave/packets of information being interpreted by the brain.

The great Physicist David Bohm has also suggested this and postulates what he calls a higher "implicate order" in the Universe, and in which the entire universe is made up of pure information.

This from Wiki:

To formulate his model, Pribram utilized Fourier analysis, based on the Fourier Theorem, a variation of calculus that transforms complex patterns into component sine waves. Some believe that Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in the engram in such limited space. Pribram believes the brain operates according to the same mathematical principles as a hologram. Bohm has suggested these wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations.

Technological advances associated with brain wave patterns, such as neuroimaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), have provided understanding that was foreshadowed by the insights of Pribram and Bohm. TMS offers the potential for improving diagnostic objectivity and the efficacy of psychiatric interventions. Researchers have made significant advances with TMS brain implants, which focus magnetic pulses on specific brain regions, thereby perhaps altering the neurological wave patterns that Pribram describes.

_____

The thing is, the ideometer effect is based on a century old and dubious model of consciousness, which incorporates a subconscious mind. But subconscious mind is merely a Band-Aid theory and an attempt to explain why some thoughts appear to come out of nowhere, and other things .....

It's much more likely, I think, that Ouija board is just sort of a crutch which helps the holonomic brain -- the brain as a "lens" of sorts gain access to information that is "out there"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
The ideomotor effect certainly does not rely on Freudian psychology or his idea of the 'subconscious'. I don't know what books you've been reading, if any, but I think we can safely assume that they weren't psychology books.

Or neuroscience books.

Yes, real scientists never disagree. Tell me again how Maslow and Rogers are at odds?

I too recommend that book to all here. Since it's another you've clearly never read, IronGhost, I recommend it to you all the more strongly.

Oh dear... you have no clue about even the basics of what modern psychology is, says or does, yet you seem so sure that you do. My advice would be to go to a bookshop; select a book with a title along the lines of Introduction to Psychology; check in the flyleaf that the publication date is at least post-1970; and then read it. Then perhaps, once you know what ideas are current, and how they were derived, you can start "sweeping them away".

There are many, many criticisms one could make of many, many aspects of modern psychology - trust me, I am a psychologist (not that non-psychologists are unable to discuss psychology, of course) - it's just that you haven't managed to make any of them. Not even close.

Maybe I should undergo Primal Scream Therapy.

Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps my dim view of psychology is based on a deeply, deeply repressed hatred of my father.

Edited by IronGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucular
Maybe I should undergo Primal Scream Therapy.

Maybe you should do just a little research that doesn't involve the half-remembered opinions of others backed up with choice quotes from Wikipedia, and realise that confusing Primal Scream Therapy and its ilk with mainstream, scientific, evidence-based psychology is like confusing reiki with mainstream, scientific, evidence-based medicine. If you need me to explain that comparison, do let me know.

Edited by Nucular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucular
Maybe I should undergo Primal Scream Therapy.

Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps my dim view of psychology is based on a deeply, deeply repressed hatred of my father.

You edited after I responded.

Where on earth are you getting these ideas from? Again you underline your complete lack of knowledge about modern psychology.

You're taking largely discredited and hugely outdated theories and touting them as if they're modern and mainstream - and then deriding psychology for using them! It's hard to know where to begin.

Edited by Nucular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
You edited after I responded.

Where on earth are you getting these ideas from? Again you underline your complete lack of knowledge about modern psychology.

You're taking largely discredited and hugely outdated theories and touting them as if they're modern and mainstream - and then deriding psychology for using them! It's hard to know where to begin.

Don't get me wrong -- I love psychology and psychologists. I got my undergraduate degree in journalism, but my minor was psychology, and I took way more courses than I had to -- if I would have stayed another semester, I could have had a double major in journalism/psychology.

Also, I love to read books on psychology and by psychologists -- Jung's "Man and His Symbols" has to rank as the Top Ten books I have ever read in my life, and one his other books -- I think it's the "Divided Self"(I'm to lazy to go look up the title) -- was also great.

Another favorite psychologist/writer is Thomas Moore -- he's an experienced therapist with unique insights.

But -- it's just that -- it's a thicket out there. In a way, psychology to me is like The National Enquirer. Many of the stories in the Enquirer and solid and true, yet everyone knows that many others are bogus. But that's what makes it worse than having everything be not true in the Enquirer -- it's because you never quite know where you stand.

But then again, the same could be said of all medicine -- even medical doctors can only be as advanced as the current scientific knowledge allows -- and it's the same with psychology, except worse -- because the theories we have of mind are impossible primitive as yet.

Jung once remarked, and I am paraphrasing -- that human consciousness is only a very recent innovation or development on the planet earth afte millions of years of evolution -- and as such, we are only just barely beginning to figure out what mind and consciousness is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucular
But -- it's just that -- it's a thicket out there. In a way, psychology to me is like The National Enquirer. Many of the stories in the Enquirer and solid and true, yet everyone knows that many others are bogus. But that's what makes it worse than having everything be not true in the Enquirer -- it's because you never quite know where you stand.

As with any discipline, you need the tools to be able to differentiate. It doesn't sound to me as if you've been given the tools in your studies to do this; and so barmy ideas seem just as plausible as quite well-evidenced and accepted ideas. This would go a long way to explaining why you're mistaking fringe therapeutic techniques and outmoded theories for mainstream, modern psychology. It would also explain why you seem equaly happy to uncritically accept a theory of mind - Pribram's holonomic model - which is interesting, but highly speculative and certainly not accepted by the psychological establishment.

I apologise if I have come over harshly in this exchange - I love a good debate, especially about psychology, but when people claim to know things they clearly don't I have to admit it irks me.

But then again, the same could be said of all medicine -- even medical doctors can only be as advanced as the current scientific knowledge allows -- and it's the same with psychology, except worse -- because the theories we have of mind are impossible primitive as yet.

Jung once remarked, and I am paraphrasing -- that human consciousness is only a very recent innovation or development on the planet earth afte millions of years of evolution -- and as such, we are only just barely beginning to figure out what mind and consciousness is.

I'm confused as to why you seek to sweep aside some archaic constructs in psychology (which largely already have been), yet are quite happy to quote others which are equally outdated. As you will know, Jung wrote quite some time ago; the science of psychology has come on immensely since he wrote that.

This is not to say that we now know what mind and consciousness are; of course, they're as difficult questions now as then. But we certainly understand far, far more about them, through research both within psychology and in some of its links with other areas of science, such as cognitive neuroscience.

But perhaps one of the most significant changes in psychology of the type you're discussing is that, whereas Freud, Jung and so on felt that a model of mind must underpin every aspect of their work, most modern psychological theory is independent of such constructs. This is why, for instance, the ideomotor effect doesn't fall with the concept of the subconscious: the 'subconscious' as discussed by Freud has for a long time been largely dismissed, but the ideomotor effect is demonstrable in experimentation, and relies much more on more proximal ideas such as expectation, and unconscious processes (which as you will know is very, very different from 'the subconscious').

There is still a place for the attempts to build grand theories of mind and consciousness; but these are but small branches of psychology, rather than the vast underpinning such ideas used to be thought as. The rest of psychology continues apace, and it matters little to, say, models of working memory, whether one or other evolutionary explanation of consciousness is suddenly shown to be invalid. It doesn't work like that any more. In fact, you could say it works the exact opposite way around.

Jung wasn't really a psychologist in the modern sense of the word - he was quite influential in certain ways, but ultimately he was a philosopher. I doubt he would recognise much of the psychology today. William James might, though.

Anyway, joking, jibes and crossness aside, I really do recommend dipping into some more modern psychology; it sounds as if cognitive psychology would be fairly up your street. Sue Blackmore's recent textbook on consciousness I also suspect would be your bag, though it's drifting from the mainstream again (not because it's silly, just because consciousness studies no longer makes up the core of psychology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost

I'm wondering, Nucular, as a psychologist, what is your view of Ouija practice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoahJaymes

So would you agree Nuclear that my I/O Psychology class is highly boring! :D Good debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Divinetruth

Ive done Ouija board three times now in various places and gotten nothing, so ive done your "challenge". Done nice approach and the taunting approach (jeez i'm not dead yet or no hauntings ;) always been with a mixed faith group.

Now i challlenge all you belivers todo a logical test *gasp the L word*

Next time you do an ouija board one person stand away from the board, now that person asks personal questions while everyone else who is using the board is blind folded. person who isn't blind folded and not touching anything moves the letters around.

In doing this YOU WILL only get gibberish. so are ghosts blind or just stupid? :P

Edited by Divinetruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucular
I'm wondering, Nucular, as a psychologist, what is your view of Ouija practice?

I think you'll probably find my answer rather dull!

I'll say outright that I'm coming from a perspective where a lot depends on whether there's anything to explain which cannot be explained without recourse to known mechanisms. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of ouija phenomena which seem to require a supernatural explanation; and so for me, it's naturalistic explanations all the way. But I do honestly believe it's important to keep an open mind; if I ever get a ouija board to do anything, I'm straight onto asking it awkward questions!

But that's not to say that there aren't interesting things going on; it's just that the interesting things going on are psychological and social in nature, rather than anything else.

Firstly, the ideomotor effect is a perfectly servicable concept in my opinion. But to my mind I don't think it's the whole story.

I think there's a lot going on in a room in which a ouija board is being used, especially where there is more than one person present. The power of expectation, the cultural connotations which are different all over the world, different beliefs and personalities. Some people will be experiencing fear and anxiety to quite an excrutiating degree, whereas others will be present for a laugh, and will secretly love the ability to freak everyone out.

I bet everyone who's done a ouija board more than a few times has purposely moved the planchette and studied everyone else's faces whilst it spelt out terrifying things (oh, just me?); and equally I bet everybody's been at a board where they know very well someone's cheating, and often have a good idea who. But the level to which we can fool ourselves never ceases to amaze me, and makes me wonder whether the relationship between ideomotor effect on the one hand (as an extreme of not knowing one is manipulating the planchette) and outright fraud on the other, might be more a continuum than a dichotomy. Especially as a quite eager-to-believe teenager, I had several ouija sessions during which I was sort of conscious of helping the spirits say what they wanted to, but there again it couldn't have been all me, could it? It was quite a fine line I skated, and in the new age literature there are plenty of excuses to justify one's actions internally (I was channeling; I felt it moving a bit and just amplified it; I was using meditation techniques to make my mind go blank, so it couldn't really have been me; and so on). This, coupled with the fact that at least half the time, it wasn't me (I used to ouija a lot with my cousin, who thought very similarly to me), was all I needed.

When I started doing the ouija more seriously as an adult, I began only to choose to share it with people I knew had the same agenda, and who would actively catch those cognitive distortions and justifications and not let them take hold. Nothing has happened, from that day to this. Same with the pendulum: I've known people who believe that pendulum would swing in correct answer to questions even if you hung it from a tree, but haven't been able to explain why when I hold it, it ignores their pleas for answers.

So I think there are influences on the level of culture, and what the ouija means to individuals; on the level of social process, and expectation, mutual encouragement of roles and interpretations; on the cognitive level, whereby we apply distortions to semiconsciously justify our 'helping'; on the psychophysiological level, of ideomotor processes; and on the fraudulent level.

See: long, tedious answer to your question :)

IronGhost, I've been reading this thread and wondering, I suppose: why don't you ask Mommy for proof? Not proof of some metaphysical reality, as I gather you have quite an idiosyncratic world view, but for proof that something is happening beyond what I've described? It sounds like you've made the odd gesture, but largely you seem to focus on finding out details about where the 'entities' are from, and of their exact nature, rather than asking for things nobody at the table knows, but which can later be verified. Incidentally, feel free to send Mommy or Rantor Rantic over to me, whether to gather information that you don't have access to (such as, say, my email password or pets' names) or just to scare the hell out of me as you described trying with your brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucular
So would you agree Nuclear that my I/O Psychology class is highly boring! :D Good debate

Heh, there certainly are some boring classes around - depends on your lecturer though! I/O isn't all bad, there are principles in there that can be quite good fun with a bit of imagination ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RX-7
So would you agree Nuclear that my I/O Psychology class is highly boring! :D Good debate

Well, I can't see much of a debate other than one person repeatedly criticizing another's views or beliefs :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoahJaymes

I don't see it that way. Don't presidential candidates use the same tactics in their debates. Criticizing the views and beliefs of the other candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghost It Notes
In all honesty, I would never put anyone in the way of what could happen; only myself for the sake of sanity. When members would drench the forums with their demon talk, their experiences and so on; I repeatedly asked for some sort of proof. I invited them into my life, told them they could possess me etc. Why? Because I am confident it is a bunch of hoopblah. I would never ask it to do something to someone else. If that was the case, who needs a gun, who needs to do the dirty work, just moreless ask a demon to do it right? What better than to have whoever you target suffer.

I think people get their misconceptions from stories passed down, the bible, religious figures etc. Take someone like myself who is not religious, we will take on Satan himself. Why....because he is a character. Nothing else.

So some of you are probably thinking, well if you don't believe then why not include your family or whoever. I like to be in charge thats why...if for some fluke unforseen way a demon does manifest, I'd like to deal with it rather than someone innocent.

Thank you very much! I am glad you feel that way...that you wouldn't risk a family member. That would be foolishness and irresponsible as well. If you want to invoke a possible evil, why do it to family? Do it to bad peeps or yourself. I am certain there are evil spirits. From personal experience. Thank you again for your consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belle.
Now i challlenge all you belivers todo a logical test *gasp the L word*

Next time you do an ouija board one person stand away from the board, now that person asks personal questions while everyone else who is using the board is blind folded. person who isn't blind folded and not touching anything moves the letters around.

In doing this YOU WILL only get gibberish. so are ghosts blind or just stupid? :P

Ironghost, I know you have done many oujia sessions - have you ever done any like this?

Edited by Belqis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Hi, Belgis and Divinetruth,

We, the UM community, recently did a version of that experiment here, collectively:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=114584

The OP there had developed an on-line version of ouija, with whole words instead of letters, and some "masking" (the user doesn't see the word, but just some placeholder symbol).

As you read through the thread, you can see the obvious and expected result. People who have never before used this "board" get gibberish. More experienced users, such as the OP, get meaningful results. In between, there is a transparent "learning curve," the quality of results improves with practice.

Apply this to the regular ouija, then. The letters, numbers, yes, and no are arrayed in a regular fashion over the surface. Obviously, even a blind person could quickly learn what is where. For a sighted person, long accustomed to a particular board (or brand of board), there is no suspense whatsoever that high-quality messages will be produced.

So, Divinetruth, what you need is a scramble screen (a ouija version of something that is actually used for touch-button security locks, to prevent onlookers from learning the access code by watching an authorized person use the keypad). Even then, you need something more effective than a blindfold to prevent simple reading.

Merely blindfolding someone working a fixed layout simply sets the stage for the "even more amazing proof" that demons, ghosts, goblins, and Greek gods are real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belle.
Hi, Belgis and Divinetruth,

We, the UM community, recently did a version of that experiment here, collectively:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=114584

*cough* ahem...yes, I was the first poster on that thread. :blush: "I got a cucumber from a mule, family history, speak." Since it was such an inauspicious start I didn't come back to see what happened lol.

I was interested in Ironghosts response as he professes to have had many Ouija sessions. I agree with your post that his writing comes across as fiction, although I suspect he probably has had some experiences and done a few sessions.

So I was interested if he had tried it blindfolded - as if you have had so many sessions surely you have played around with stuff like that. Especially if you have an interest in psychology etc.

Edited by Belqis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
*cough* ahem...yes, I was the first poster on that thread.

And a fine illustration of the phenomenon your post was, too :) .

My intention was not to intercept your query to IronGhost, only to direct those who might be interested in the issue raised by Divinetruth, and seconded by your recent post, to an existing source of UM wisdom on that topic.

It never hurts to have an independent check on anyone's testimony, nor to assemble all available evidence in one place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belle.
And a fine illustration of the phenomenon your post was, too :) .

:lol: Ya I was half expecting "Devil kill murder you now" or something of that ilk. Not the benelolent act of recieving a vegetable from an equine.

No, I was glad you reminded me of that thread. For you were right it illustrated the point well and as we know anyone can tell you anything on here and that is a semi independent thing you can check out for yourself.

Edited by Belqis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost

So many great questions here, so much excellent discussion, even if it gets pitched, at times, and some people get wrankled. But it's all good.

Listen: My Ouija stories are definitely not fiction as some here have said -- but does that mean they are true? Not necessarily. To say that something is "true" implies that someone is in a perfect position in the Universe to know --solidly-- what "Truth" with a capital "T" really is.

When someone says, "Oh that's not true" there is an assumption that that person has a cosmic connection with the ultimate source of Truth, and can therefore recognize it, and cast judgment accurately, and without error. No one here, including myself, has that power.

Have I tried the Ouija with all players blindfolded? Yes, many times, and as expected, it produces gibberish. But, believe me, this proves nothing, and also tells us nothing for sure. If you would continue to use the Ouija board for 41 years like I have, you would not at all be comfortable with the ideometer effect theory.

I first "played" with the Ouija when I was 8 and with my brothers and sister. As I have written here, those early session produced goofy, fun "conversations" with local dead people -- the board also told us all kinds of crazy things, like when we would die, and how -- none of which came true. Again, when I was 8, the Ouija told me I would die at age 41, a homeless alcoholic, and that I would be stabbed to death. Never came true.

But then two weeks from my 10th Birthday, my life changed forever. I was shot through the stomach in a hunting accident on a frigid 15-below-zero day in Minnesota. As I lay crumpled on the frozen ground, and as my brother and friend ran the half-mile they needed to run to get help, I embarked on an NDE of fantastic proportions. I saw myself rise out of my body, saw my bleeding form below on the frozen farm field, saw my brother and friend running for help as if from the vantage point of a bird flying in the air -- and for the first time in my life, I experienced very extreme happiness, that was more than happiness, and even more than bliss -- let's just call it Supreme Bliss.

I remember thinking wildly, and laughing as I floated in the air: "I woke up! I woke up! I woke up! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

I was just so alive, so happy and so unbelievably aware -- it was like I could see every atom in the universe -- and it all seemed just so painfully and unbelievably funny!

Then -- I was suddenly sucked into what I call "the starry tunnel" and went screaming along, seemingly through a wormhole, very much like you might see in Star Trek or in that movie "Contact" based on Sagan's book. And the instant I was sucked into the tunnel my feelings of Super Bliss was instantly cancelled and replaced by the "feeling" of absolutely nothing -- which is not like "feeling" nothing -- but being equal with "absolute nothing." I popped out of the tunnel and it appeared I was floating in deep space --nothing but brilliant, hard, unblinking stars massively distant from me in all direction. I wasn't making any value judgments about my extraordinary situation -- I was just observing what was happening.

I floated in space for a time -- but it didn't seem like time -- when, presently, I saw on the periphery of my upper right vision, two glowing blobs of light. They came closer to me, and I saw them more clearly -- I have always called them "The Snowflake Beings" because they looked like to large, sort of foggy, snowflakes. They sort of flickered and pulsated -- and I and the two Snowflake Beings hovered their in space for how long there is no way to determine because it was, like, the time concept does not apply here -- yet, it was incredibly wonderful.

And that was just the beginning. After my communion with the Snowflake Beings, there was about three days of really, really, really wild stuff -- and I'm not going to get into it here, because it could go on for pages.

But here's the thing: When I recovered from the accident, the next time we hauled out the old Parker's Brothers Ouija board again, the nature and tenor of the session changed very dramatically. As I said, before we had cute conversations with dead plumbers and old lady ghosts, and such, but here is how the first session after my "Great Event" went -- and I don't have a transcript of this, am writing it from memory, but this is very close because it was a very vivid session for all of us. Working the board with me was my brother, who was 21 years old at the time. I was 10.

Question: Ouija Board, we want to talk to some ghosts. Are there any around?

ANSWER: I WOULD SPEAK WITH YOU. I WOULD SAMPLE YOUR THOUGHTS.

Question: Who are you?

ANSWER: BALTHUS CAVE.

Question: Never heard of you. Are you a ghost?

ANSWER: NO. I AM A THOUGHT ASTRONOMER. I WOULD SAMPLE YOUR THOUGHTS.

Question: What is a thought astronomer?

ANSWER: I STUDY THOUGHT EMANATIONS OF THE GALAXY.

Question: Are you on the planet Earth?

ANSWER: NO. ARE YOU ON A PHYSICAL PLANET?

Question: Yes, we call our planet earth. It's in the third planet from the sun in our solar system. What do you think?

ANSWER: THEN YOU PERCEIVE THE STARS AS LIGHT. I PERCEIVE THE STARS AS THOUGHT.

Question: How do you do that?

ANSWER: I USE THE BASER. A TELESCOPE GATHERS LIGHT. THE BASER GATHERS THOUGHT.

Question: Are you reading our thoughts with the Baser right now?

ANSWER: I AM SAMPLING YOUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. GOOD-BYE.

Well, when that session was done, we all looked at each other -- and none of had much a comment. It was a feeling like -- well, what the hell was that all about?

And then, of course, followed 41 years of similar sh**t -- but there was another huge change in the tenor of the Ouija information after I began to study Zen, and eventually tore down my mind, washed it out, reconstructed it, put it back (without really putting it anywhere) -- but I was able to clearly perceive that there is no subconscious mind, much less the "mind" we think is "mind." What most people consider to be their mind today is a "construct."

Furthermore, no one here has to take my word for it, because anyone can find out on their own the nature of their own minds -- if you are willing to get rid of preconceived notions about the way things are "supposed to be" -- which of course, they never are -- then you may find the Ouija a whole different flavor.

So I'll end my comments here for now, which are already over long -- perhaps I'll discuss this more in future posts.

Thanks everyone for all your surprisingly intelligent comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

An Online Ouija Board

I tried this one out.

I asked

Is the entity MOMMY with whom Ironghost talks real?

NO.

Is the entity HELIX MASTER with whom Ironghost talks real?

NO.

What is your name?

UNCLE AR (note the space..exactly ..the planchette came back to the centre after UNCLE and then went to AR...)

What is the state you are in, UNCLE AR?

TOO DARK

Is Death a transitional Phase?

NO

UNCLE AR, have your ever been in the Dead State?

NO

then for some other questions, it told some thing like..the state we are in is the actual Dead State and the state it (UNCLE AR) is in is the LIVING state.

i asked

What is my Mother's First Name? (my Mom is dead for long)

NOT KNOWN

I said

Good Bye.

MAYBE LATER.

Goodbye UNCLE AR.

closed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
An Online Ouija Board

I tried this one out.

I asked

Is the entity MOMMY with whom Ironghost talks real?

NO.

Is the entity HELIX MASTER with whom Ironghost talks real?

NO.

What is your name?

UNCLE AR (note the space..exactly ..the planchette came back to the centre after UNCLE and then went to AR...)

What is the state you are in, UNCLE AR?

TOO DARK

Is Death a transitional Phase?

NO

UNCLE AR, have your ever been in the Dead State?

NO

then for some other questions, it told some thing like..the state we are in is the actual Dead State and the state it (UNCLE AR) is in is the LIVING state.

i asked

What is my Mother's First Name? (my Mom is dead for long)

NOT KNOWN

I said

Good Bye.

MAYBE LATER.

Goodbye UNCLE AR.

closed....

MOMMY herself denies that she is real. She will only admit to the state of NOTHING, inside the NOTHIN CHAMBER.

Much here depends on a good working definition of what is real and not real -- a very sticky and problematic concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

ironghost...the one i checked out was a online ouija board. is it almost same as the real deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
ironghost...the one i checked out was a online ouija board. is it almost same as the real deal?

Unknown. I've never looked into the online Ouija board. Perhaps I'll take a look at it and formulate and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.