THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,rec.drugs.psychedelics,alt.psychoactives,alt.consciousness.mysticism
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Angels, Psychology, and Mysticism (b)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:59:21 GMT

50030802 viii LAMMAS

nagasiva:
# the following preceded by "$" is excerpted from
#        "Angels Page 2" (aka "Speaking Of Angels II-FAQ-FYI")
#        [by David St. Albans, aka 'angelicusrex']
#        http://www.saintalbanstudio.com/pg2.html
#
# $ ...taken several courses in Science of Mind
# $ practice at First Church of Religious Science....
#
#> does the FCRS describe angels in their cosmology?
#> do they have a reaction to those who contact them?

# No. The FCRS does not entertain any cosmology but
# accepts them all as viable expressions of people's
# spiritual growth....

do most in the FCRS have familiarity with those who
speak with angels, or are you unusual to them?

#> I wonder if desperation or extremity of experience is a necessary
#> precursor to speaking with angels for some.
# 
# My angels and my wife's angels have concurred with this. Trauma
# is almost always what makes our connection to one another. because
# people don't seem to listen unless they feel they are at the end
# of their rope.

that's one interpretation. another would be akin to something like
JJaynes' "bicameral mind", which may require trauma to re-emerge as
he described. there are of course other wonderful psychological
models which incorporate internal descriptions of what happens,
such as a connection with a deeper level of consciousness that is
not accessible ordinarily unless surface consciousness is somehow
debilitated (as through shock, trauma, or psychoactives). the
various models have different evaluations of whether this
experience is actually something someone would wish (i.e. it is
sometimes compared with a kind of functional psychosis).

the variables would seem to be

		A) ABILITY TO HEAR -- this might be affected by such things
		as diverse as genetics and focus of attention. direction to
		certain types of internal phenomena, such as particular
		thought tones, or what seems of a different quality of
		origination (e.g. not subject to direct control or less
		obvious as to information source) might also be factors.
		
		this variable might also be influenced by physical condition,
		such as enabling or disabling hearing through infirmity,
		consciousness state mediated by ingestion of psychoactives,
		or influenced by mystical or magical activities.
		
and
		B) INTEREST IN LISTENING -- this would seem much more
		aligned with personal background, conditioning as regards
		willingness to engage internal dialogues that may be
		presumed with "other intelligences", and generally some
		acceptance sufficient to grant otherwise transparent
		phenomenal appearances something more than an imaginary
		(and therefore ignorable) status.
		
		this variable also might be influenced by physical as well
		as other related conditions (e.g. financial, emotional)
		that might inspire interest in engaging supernormal agents
		in assisting in solving personal or even societal problems.

#> whether we might compare his supposed straits and that of others
#> is debatable,

you didn't seem to understand the real issue as regards comparing
St. John of the Cross and conventional spiritual 'emergence'. the
mystical community sometimes distinguishes between 'real' mystical
ennui in which the God or Ultimate Ground or whatever has given
the mystic the equivalent of a kind of 'tough love test' and what
might be described as mental illness badly interpreted as some
kind of spiritual breakthrough.

the psychology of consciousness and mystical communities are
sometimes more critical of taking certain symptoms, especially
outside the confines of traditional mystical disciplines, or
religious systems, as comparable to classic mystical states or
results. there is quite a bit of attention paid to St. John's
'Dark Night of the Soul', and with good reason. perspectives
on it vary from interpreting IT as some kind of mental problem to
identifying its particular elements as a unique and important
religious 'stage' within an expectable sequence of experiences.

since John's 'Dark Night' has been interpreted as negative,
otherwise negative experiences are sometimes associated with it.
one might criticize the New Age and 'spiritual emergency' folks
as transposing an elevated level of spirituality for the actual
serious problems with which they are dealing, effectively
misunderstanding their illnesses as signs of comparable
mystical achievement and avoiding remedial, helpful treatment.

this may be fruitfully compared with those who analyze mystical
writings and symptoms *themselves* as those of mental illness,
re-contextualizing mysticism as the arena of those who experience
strange internal effects because of their predisposition and
peculiarly-twisted internal states. those 'mystical successes'
are thereafter identified in terms of their practical activities
and how these mesh with symptomatic behaviours. for example, the
mystics notably good at repetitive mantram or engaging repeated
purgation might be described as obsessive-compulsive, those who
frequently enter into trance-states (e.g. 'samadhi') may be
described as some kind of epileptics, entering fugue-states
brought on by their physiology and genetics or as a result of
repetitious meditative activities and interpreted as 'exhalted',
given superior spiritual status by the local mystical community.

I'm more inclined to presume the functionality of the mystic is
indicative of their success, particularly when combined with
consistent positive and beneficial effects from whatever kinds
of discipline that they undertake. this downplays the stationary
ascetic guru that repeatedly enters trance-states and must be
care-taken by the cult as they encounter what they call 'God',
and emphasizes instead the mystical and meditative specialist
who exhibits the qualities of personal integrity and depth that
ought to be associated with spiritual maturity (patience, quiet
reflection, openness, breadth of mind, enduring kindness, etc.).

#> but the trajectory is comparable to be sure. modern New Age
#> theorists sometimes talk about 'The Spiritual Emergency',
#> for example, and mean by this a kind of pun on 'emergent
#> spirituality' and difficult periods of health both mental
#> and physical.
# 
# Well, we all have a spiritual emergency eventually. Life is
# a bitch, then we die. As they say. In between we ask why.

my impression is that what has been identified as 'spiritual
emergency' is a somewhat NOVEL category of spiritually-
aggrandized personal problems that are distinguishable from
what have been identified by such insightful books as
"Passages" and others as routine or observable life-stage
developments (e.g. the "mid-life crisis"). what this novel
class shares is the quality of paring down to, and often
the complete or partial revision of, fundamental values and
beliefs that have been resurfaced by conflicting circumstances,
such as life-threatening or debilitating illnesses,
encounters with personal tragedy, violence, loss, etc.  from
what I've seen a good number of them are catalyzed by some
kind of emphasis on personal mortality and disillusionment
as regards one's actual limitations of (at least physical)
experience. 

these in turn might lead to conversion or, in the case of
unresolved issues, institutionalization or suicide. those
who successfully navigate the sometimes turbulent waters of
these internal revolutions may be prone to them (I've known
people who engage a series of religious conversions, for
example and may or may not really ever settle out and
broaden or build on foundations). they may also find that
the experience of conversion makes them more tolerant of
the views and activities of others (in its most extreme,
allowing them to presume that 'people can change and
accept the Truth if given sufficient opportunity').

#> I find it intriguing that psychoactives are associated with
#> some contacts with nonordinary beings. critical people will
#> no doubt negate these experiences *because* they may be
#> mediated or influenced by such substances (whether they are
#> prescribed or proscribed by the surrounding society). that
#> the contact persists *beyond* such mediation is important
#> to a study of the phenomenon.
# 
# Drugs and psychoactive devices, including meditation, sweat
# lodges, fasting, etc. drive us to the brink of our "spiritual
# emergency."

this is a confusion of terminology, from what I've seen. the
usual assessment of what has come in recent years to be called
'spiritual emergency' is 'unfortunate debilitation as a result
of life-changing tragedy', with certain cultural exceptions
that are seen as necessary or precursive to greater development.
the most popularly-understood phenomenon that I know about that
includes this exception is what is called "shamanism", in which
the youth of the shaman includes a life-threatening illness
which catalyzes hir career and enables insight into the world
of their ally spirits.

the items you mention above are not typically associated with
'spiritual emergency' in a strict sense. instead, they are
better understood as mystico-religious disciplines or practices
that have the capacity to yield valuable psychospiritual results.
some of them may well serve to debilitate or inhibit certain
personal or interior aspects of consciousness to the point where
what is associated with a condition of emergency may result.

certain substances, for example, may bring the body to a very
serious condition of repose or withdrawal, possibly emphasizing
in attention the internal stage or arena we call the mind and
allowing us to explore areas generally and otherwise inaccessible
to us. some are mind-numbing exercises in willful self-restraint
to the point of forcing some unusual psychological response,
such as extended routinization in meditation which may make
possible a greater degree of focus of attention at later times.

what many of these techniques DO bring us to the brink of is
the awareness of our INCONSISTENT PERSONAL IDENTITY. shoving
bits and pieces of our mental machinery into new areas
with which we are not familiar, inducing unusual states of
consciousness (logged and taxonomized by such outstanding
authorities as James, Tart, and others) may have the result
of allowing insight into one's personal integrity, position
and/or role with respect to one's community or the world in
general. it may also serve to undermine what are already
stable and functional relationships with the world as whole.
as such, they may not be valuable to all who engage them.

# What is intriguing is that there seems to be something at
# the other end. If there wasn't, then all these things
# would end up pretty worhtless as an experience....

evaluating them one way or another (i.e. 'worthless' or
'valuable') can be very deceiving. instead, I would suggest
that they may be valuable for some to engage, but that one's
overall interests are not necessarily supplemented by their
engagement. they are technologies which have the capacity
to provide particular results if one is ready for them.
those who aren't might actually be harmed or badly-served.

# When I was in my teens I was heavily into the Psychedelic
# experience. I was always searching for God though. I read
# a police pamphelet against LSD that said some kid had
# "Seen God." Well, that was for me! And my first "trip" I
# did indeed find God and feel Oneness with the Universe.
# It changed me completely from what I had been or how I
# saw the world... 

such changes are not, of course, what everyone is seeking.
how would you describe the difference between how you had
been and your resulting perspective?

# Resultant experiments did not yield these results
# however. Though the experiences were dramatic and
# revealing. It was hard to "live the life" though,
# especially in America.

my understanding is that problems of tolerance escalation
and perceptual filtration make routinized ingestion of
psychedelics problematic or at least subject to a decrease
in any beneficial experiential results one might obtain.
this will, of course, vary as the do results of substances
ingested across the genetic/biological spectrum. the most
commonly-understood manifestation of this phenomenon with
respect to substances at large in *my* culture is to be
seen in how alcohol affects differently-sized people and
those of varying genetic types (Irish/Native Americans
and Semitic being some of the most extremes here).

from what I've observed (based on personal experiences of
repeated ingestion and observation of others doing same),
such repeated psychedelic experiences decrease in intensity
and what I would call 'potential beneficial spiritual effect'
as determined by the recentness and effective grounding of
the experience into everyday life. the euphoria or ecstasy
which is an important part of the aesthetic draw drops off
in intensity and the disabling effects become more pronounced,
making that to which you may be obliquely referring here as
'living the life' (i.e. some idealized ecstatic state which
is catalyzed by repeated ingestion of these substances)
quite unattainable due to the nature of biochemistry.

I would think with the passage of time and any continuing
studies after such pioneers as Lilly and the escapades and
media-hype of figures like Leary, combined with the arrival
of anarchic communication-forums such as may be found on
the internet, that this has been better understood by at
least some of the more rational and reflective sorcerers.

# $ Believe me, I tested him. I asked him to quote
# $ scripture, to say the name of Jesus, to say Jesus
# $ was his master. He answered all these things and
# $ more. We actually got to know each other.
# 
#> you seem to have been asked about testing quite a lot, else
#> I doubt you'd have reacted to Tom and I the way that you did.
# 
# People here tend to believe that I speak only to "demons." ...

this merely indicates to me that those you frequently encounter
are Christians. if they were Muslims they'd probably call them
'djinns', for example, in comparison. occultists tend to divide
them into a variety of classes, from 'spirits' or 'daemons'
(after the Greek reference from which the Christian proceeded
-- you make note of this in your post to which this is a reply)
to less overt or externalized agents like 'thought-forms' or
'servitors'. terminology tends to identify the speaker, and
this is particularly obvious when the categories are plastered
OVER whatever phenomena are being reported and without respect
to the individual reporting the experience. you do this to a
limited extent also, and so it one might speak of sauces and
ganders in relation. ;>

this plastering-over is a type of religious assault, carried
out in the context of discussion through reinterpretation and
usually for the purposes of conversion or a personal clinging
to one's chosen knowledge set. at best this can be used as a
keyset to understand someone, and at worst, a tool of coersion.
I'm omitting most of your attempted presentation of how you
have assimilated your experiences in favour of paying more
attention instead to practical details.

# My angels tell me that indeed the Tarot, Astrology, the
# Ouija Board, etc. all work towards interaction between
# the symbolic world of the Spirit and our own. They simply
# feel once you've got a "voice connection" why bother with
# symbology that might be hard to translate? However they
# do in fact speak through all those devices and lots more.

the issue of 'what lies beyond' divinatory devices or oracles
is a very interesting and debatable one. for example, some
within the occult community have described 'the Angel HRU'
as being the agency informing the oracular result, whereas
others ascribe the Tarot's success to it being 'The Book of
Thoth' (an Egyptian god of magic, writing, and arithmetic).
many occultists talk of *individual* decks being themselves
invested with magical power and capable of individual replies
that may vary from the results of other decks. still others
identify oracular devices of this sort as technologies which
require the involvement of consciousness to function, and do
so as *mirrors* or prognosticative spectacles.

your question, therefore, of why bothering to seek out a
divinatory device, depends on how one thinks of these
devices and what may be achieved in terms of direct contact.
attempting to talk to a Tarot deck would be an amusing
alternative to consulting it via manipulation. :>
ostensibly the mechanism of interaction has some affect
on the results or content of the communication as a whole.
where it might seem inhibiting to you to use symbols as
on cards instead of engaging in direct conversation (if
that is an available experience), the *reason* for the
consultation might be important to determining the method.
angels might not be able to have he same effect upon your
consciousness through a voice in your head as how they
may be able to direct you toward certain symbolism that
is presumed to have a catalyzing effect on the development
of your consciousness (as is presumed by some mystics and
magicians as regards meditative focus on tarot and other
symbolic imagery).

# [in the New Age community] I never heard of the type and form of angels
# [my wife] was in touch with. They weren't "Symbolic" ... didn't have
# wings, halos, white robes nor could they care less about religion, the
# Bible, (though they can quote every line in it) the Koran or any other
# Holy Scripture....

perhaps the New Age community has relegated such contacts as you're
describing to the status of 'extra-terrestrials' or 'interplanar
beings' on the order of Jane Roberts' "Seth", JZ Knight's "Ramtha",
or any number of others who identify or fuse the angelic and the
alien. the 11:11 material, for example, quite clearly identifies
the beings who may be contacted as beneficial and of a variety of
descriptions, not necessarily including wins or thing which might
be the product of middle-eastern religious consciousness. even the
fairly Hermetic New Agers like Elizabeth Claire Prophet who form a
portion of longstanding communities and publishing lineages such
as the I Am material constitute a kind of intermediary set of
descriptive data-sets (beings without wings but having auras of
specific purple-yellow-white colour), referred to as 'saints'
and/or angels (e.g. St. Germain) and connected with religion.


EPISTEMOLOGY

# $ Under the tutelage of Annex I began to be directed
# $ slowly to ...the TRUTH with a capital T.
# 
#> I have felt that way before. my education in mathematics,
#> sciences, and philosophy leads me quite often to a
#> deconstructing of this type of certitude. perhaps that is
#> to my disadvantage, but this hasn't been my perception of
#> the events. I think I've been served well to maintain a
#> kind of grounding and continued progress by my skepticism.
# 
# You are speaking to a skeptic. I am skeptical of everything.
# Including at times, my own experiences and these angels and
# God.

here we begin to speak of differing levels or types of
skepticism. what I mentioned above is that I don't ever
really arrive at what you are calling "capital T TRUTH"
because I deconstruct my experience and any certitude
to which I may be led by means of philosophy. it isn't that
I *can't* be certain of things, but that that which I am able
to assume the position of certitude about is more restricted.

I can say with certainty that I did HAVE that experience to
which I referred above, where Kali directed my attention to a
novel perspective of local symbolism in ways that I'd never
before apprehended (constituting, for me, the exact type of
"evidence" which I had at that moment requested). however,
I don't thereafter draw conclusions about the level of
accuracy for metaphysical information that I'm being given
by Kali for my consideration. in fact, for whatever reason,
She tends to encourage me NOT to engage that level of
credulity, instead describing what She says are "alternate
views that may help me in my approach to that described".

as I was saying, it may be to my detriment that I am missing
out on or overlooking cosmic knowledge that Kali might elsewise
offer, and that others such as you have become convinced are
Truth in a transcendental sense, representing it to me as such.
my level of skepticism is of a different quality, or level, and
may be described as extending somewhat beyond yours.

my working hypothesis based on experience and logic to date is
that truth is a relative and nonverbalizable quality ascribed to
linguistic descriptions that are resonant with our experience.
as such, 'truths' are those descriptions with which our
experience accords (regardless of their transcendental
truth value) and may easily in point of fact be in error. this
is the basis of some philosophy of science, referred to by such
notables as Kuhn and Popper in their analysis of the scientific
process as relevant only to the DISPROOF of hypotheses which
derive from tentative knowledge-sets constructed in conjecture
based on previous reflection.

as such, you might be describe me as a kind of Nihilist, in
that my working hypothesis affords no circumscription of fact
by linguistic description. certain strands of culture and
mystical history DOES make room for this kind of conceptual
self-restraint, including some forms of Zen Buddhism and the
more individually-based forms of Anabaptist Christianity. the
differentials of skepticism are seldom approached in this
level of refinement, but when two skeptics meet, we may need
to compare our criteria for the derivation of knowledge (which
you would probably regard as a conceptual description of Truth
with a capital T).

# but TRUTH is not a Biblical issue, not a religious issue.
# It is WHAT IS. Everything that IS. We are a part of it, not
# outside of it. Therefore it is hard for us to discern it
# holistically. And we question our understanding of it, which
# we should....  ...the type of TRUTH I mean. The real story
# behind the myths and symbols.

precisely, you believe that you can express that "real story"
in words, whereas I tend to think that "real story" is an
oxymoron. :> our levels of skepticism are simply different.


# the following preceded by "%" is excerpted from
#      "Speaking of Angels II- FAQ"
#        [by David St. Albans, aka 'angelicusrex']
#      http://www.saintalbanstudio.com/pg3.html
# 
# % There are two entities speaking here. Me, David St.
# % Albans and Annex, a group of four or more angels
# % working together.
# 
#> that's also interesting. Kali has appeared to me in a variety
#> of guises, I've understood Her in a variety of ways, and even
#> understood in my interaction with Her that She had 'facets'
#> or 'sides' with which I might interact. I've rarely tried
#> to catalogue these, but those most obvious to me so far
#> are Xiwangmu, Kwanyin, and Satan. this latter I've only
#> approached via pact and with great caution, understanding
#> that Satan was "Kali's most corrosive or destructive
#> (wildest) aspect". I haven't ever had the notion that there
#> was some kind of 'coordination' amongst these aspects,
#> though it has often occurred to me that Kali was most
#> comprehensively knowable as 'all that is not me', and that
#> my most inherent identity would be reflected as Her mate
#> (thus She gave me the name 'nagasiva' as a key to this and
#> as an honorific to the great sage Nagarjuna of the Buddhists).
# 
# ...I don't believe there is a Satan. This is a Hebrew word
# that means Adversary.

I'm not sure that "a Satan" is the same thing as a being called
by the name 'Satan'. the term does derive from a Hebrew noun,
yes, but it is now an English word. no amount of hoping it will
recede back into its roots is going to change that. ;> also, a
words context is important to its meaning. above I made very
clear that I was using it in a particular way. I am not Jewish,
nor am I Indian, and so my use of language may be at odds, when
attempting to understand me, with the etymological history of
any particular noun or pronoun that I employ. you do not do us
a service by mixing up these categories of knowledge, and
instead go some distance to confusing matters.

# ...Kali can be the adversary of mankind, but not of God. Not
# in a strict Hindu sense. She is an aspect of the Godhead. Her
# cults can often be good and noble. We Americans just heard
# about the bad ones like the Thugees. It would be like hearing
# about Christianity in relation to say, the Jim Jones Church.
# Cults is whacky sometimes.

notice that your mode of speech is objective, whereas my own
is subjective. I merely say what I do and how I understand,
whereas you are attempting an overarching and determined truth
that you would here use to usurp my understanding. unfortunately
for your efforts, I am more familiar with the bases of these words
than you realize, and am intentional in my employment.

quite beyond the thuggees, whom the British effectively wiped out,
Kali is quite often understood by Indians and others to be 'the
goddess of disease', and is understood by as many others as She
Who Brings About the Destruction in a manner rather importantly
similar to the description of Her sometimes consort, Shiva. as a
conduit and bringer of disease (or as the disease itself), Kali
is INDEED at times seen as an adversary to human beings, but is
usually by Her devotees addressed as someone who holds power in
becoming secured against that over which She presides.

with respect to any kind of "Godhead", I leave that to those who
believe in it to unravel. your overarching cosmology in which a
"Godhead" incorporates any particular set of gods subsumed to it
strikes me as one more fabrication that cannot ever really apply
to the diversity which constitutes human religion. cults are
*indeed* whacky sometimes, and from what I've seen they are in
no way resolved into some simplistic coherent picture wherein a
superordinate whole presides over the rest as 'aspects', despite
the fact that my experience does include some of these ideas. :>

#> initially Kali wasn't known to me as such, but as a
#> series of entities I encountered with graduated power.
#> first She appeared in the guise of trees. sometime
#> later this changed as I discovered Her appearance
#> in association with dragons
# 
# My wife .... ...believed the entities protecting her at one
# time to be visually like dragons. Later they manifested as
# people or the spirits which resemble humans.

the variability of appearance is intriguing to me, and one of
the reasons that I have difficulties coming to any absolute
assessment of the nature of these sources of information and
perspective. like metaphysics discussed above, coming to
conclusions about the 'real appearance' of these beings
strikes as of dubious value. it may well be the case that a
positive or exalted vision of them may predispose one toward
listening to or being able to hear them. of course, it may
also lend one interest in agreeing with or obeying them. ;>

# ...if a being asks you to allow it to possess your body so
# it may do things in the physical world. This is NOT an angel.
# If it demands sacrifices, or dramatic "proof" of your love
# for it, then this is NOT an angel nor is it God.

as I read this, these are your religious prejudices speaking.

I say this because I've known a number of very serious and
spiritual people (Neopagans, adherents of African diasporic
traditions or their offshoots, etc.) for whom possessory
experiences (as by the gods, saints/orishas, lwa, etc.) were
a good part of their worship. now perhaps your distinction
here is valuable as regards what *you* mean by angels, but
inasmuch as may you wish to assimilate a coherent description
of varying religions in the world (speaking in terms of
capital T Truth, etc.), I don't think you're doing a very
convincing job by restricting possession from the mix.

while you and I share an experience in which our respective
angels are not demanding from us sacrifices or tokens of
affection, proofs of our dedication, etc., this doesn't,
to me, mean that such demands might not be asked of others
who have different standards where angels are concerned.

in fact, occasionally when I have mentioned being dedicated
to Kali, others have warned me about how Kali sometimes will
demand very drastic things of Her devotees. some of those
who said this were even dedicated to Her *themselves*. for
example, is restraint from sacrificial request something
that merely obtains within cultures for which there is a
taboo or conventional objection to it? while Kali hasn't
demanded sacrifices, She hasn't refused them when I have
offered, whether they were living beings or ordeals/acts.

# The God of the Bible, to me, is not God. It is way too
# demanding and harsh.

maybe this just means you're not a Biblical Jew/Christian.
it could mean you (as well as others like you, me for
example) just aren't made of the 'right stuff', aren't
dedicated enough to the god or his angels, etc. 


[RE: http://www.saintalbanstudio.com/pg4.html ]

# you say that angels are "God Energy", "Light Workers",
# who are beyond religious distinctions, supportive of all
# religious views of them, cannot be controlled or used to
# harm others, are at a "higher vibration" leading us
# toward that God, and that the physical is a "low level
# reality". this reminds me greatly of New Age contentions
# about the universe which I find intriguing but as yet
# unconvincing and dualistic.
# 
# Dualistic? Only in that there is a distinct difference
# between the physical and spiritual. Or appears to be.
# Until one is enlightened. Then all appears as One.

by your conventions, then, I am enlightened. ;> I don't
perceive such a distinction exception to our limited and
divisive minds.


#> didactic modes of address are examples of instruction,
#> whether you think you are relaying truths, information,
#> or some fabricated nonsense from Alpha Centauri.
# 
# First of all this is your opinion, not a definition.

quite so, and also a general description of didactic modes,
whether or not you may come across in this manner.

# And how do we know someone is fabricating nonsense from
# Alpha Centauri? Maybe it's pertinent information?

absolutely. it was merely an example I provided, not a
general categorization of information from that locale.

# Therefore this also shows you have an opinion.

only in your inference. I don't have one about Alpha Centauri
data channelled by New Agers.  I'd rather see how it bears up
to testing.

# Like others might have an opinion about people who talk
# to Kali.

and welcome to their prejudices they may be. I would hope that
all such information would be subjected to critical analysis
and reflective consideration before believed whole-hog, no
matter *what* the source of information might be. sources that
seem extraordinary or unlikely (gods, angels, etc.) are as due
this examination as any other, probably moreso.

"angelicusrex" :
#>#># There are bad human spirits. People generally get
#>#># involved with these during Ouija board sessions,
#>#># seances and that sort of thing.

#>#># However the worst these beings ever really do is
#>#># scare people. Throwing things around, hiding things,
#>#># making noises. These are "poltergeists." And are
#>#># basically harmless. They are easily gotten rid of.
#>#># ...I never said there was a problem with Ouija boards
#>#># at all. I have used them to good effect.

# ...people have troubles with the SPIRITS when they do
# these SESSIONS. Not with the Ouija Board itself. People
# who are without any idea of the power of Spirit, should
# not play games with it.

thanks for explaining. why is it that people have troubles
with spirits via Ouija boards but not when calling on some
angels, internally?

"angelicusrex" :
#># ...this is often how people contact lost
#># human souls, who can often be bad or mischevious.
#># They may try to imitate angels. But they are not
#># angels. They are lost human souls....

when encountering a lost human soul imitating an angel,
how would you go about distinguishing the difference?

# How can a board have problems? It is a board, made of
# cardboard and paint. It's always the human element
# that has the problems.

as described above, some regard spirit boards (what these
are called beyond the OuiJa by Parker Bros) as tools, and
tools are sometimes considered to have flaws, weaknesses,
and/or predispositions for whatever reason. I'd thought
you were saying that spirit boards were for some reason
less prone to lead one to contact unreliable agents as
compared to just calling out to them like your angels.
now I'm unsure how you differentiate them for reliability.


re how you came to know that the insane are always compelled
   to obey the voices that they hear:

#> ah, so you generalized from your minor experiences
#> to the greater human population.
# 
# Look, I've studied psychology. ...experience.... First hand
# knowledge.... ...I've got it....

experience and first-hand knowledge doesn't suffice to
determine the reality as regards psychology unless you have
been involved in case studies, as far as I'm concerned, you
know, cross-spectrum analysis of a number of individuals,
all it would take would be one exception in which someone
was "insane" (a very ambiguous word) who was NOT compelled
to obey voices they heard and your generalization would be
disproven. my memory from study of psychology is that yours
is a generalization without accuracy -- i.e. that there are
indeed psychotics, schizophrenics, who are capable of
resisting the demands of their imagined voices. popular
media has even portrayed them within films like 'A Beautiful
Mind' and others.  if you have actual data, let me know.

#># the premises of your consistant undermining of my
#># "report" are ... flawed.

my premises are that 

	* projection can constitute a limitation to
	  distinguishing between what originates from
	  one's surface consciousness and what does not,
	
	* you have a tendency to project thoughts and
	  values onto others, attributing to them what
	  you yourself have fabricated, seemly without
	  even knowing that you are doing this.

I still don't see flaws in either of these premises.

# ...you maintain that my report of angels is flawed and
# unreliable....

I maintain that your tendency to project constitutes
a significant enough debilitation that your report of
the difference between what you think and what you are
told *might* become muddled and subject to error. I've
not concluded on this matter because of the distance
between us (observation via cyberspace is insufficiently
unreliable to arrive at conclusions in this regard).

all the bits about my lack of authority as regards
speaking about or to angels are unimportant.

# ...If you are not [an authority as regards speaking
# about or to angels], how can you speak with any
# authority against my report or my techniques?

reflective observation which may be confirmed or
demonstrated faulty by a clear observation of same.

# ...[your (tentative) conclusions you] got from what? 

patient observation of many around me and a logical
assessment of what angelic communication includes, such
that unreliable sources on this type of information
may be identified and placed into appropriate context.

# ...I never once used [my angels] to say....

have you ever used them for this purpose (faked what
they said as something that you yourself believed)?

# ...I AM protected. Angels don't necessarily [like]
# their beloved to be put in harm's way.

do angels ever act to protect their beloveds? in what
manner, if so?

# ...How do YOU define authority?...

generally, as capable of expression with the power
to persuade, whether from a social or personal
position of power. authorities may or may not be
reliable sources of information, and therefore
there is benefit from questioning them. authorities
usually have some direct experience in that about
which they express themselves, but their knowledge
may derive from second- or third-hand sources.
first-hand knowledge can be quite valuable, though
those who have it are sometimes uncritical buffoons
without the capacity to rarefy it or compare it with
any number of other knowledge-streams by which they
may be corrupted.

# ...I can't tell if you actually care to be
# involved with God.

as I usually say to those who address me in such a
presumptuous manner: which God?

# I've never spoken with a Kali worshiper before.

probably few have. ;>

namaste

nagasiva