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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Communicating Agent Taxonomy Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:58:51 GMT

here we go again! ;>

50030724 viii

REVISED COMMUNICATION AGENT TAXONOMY FOR DISCUSSION/CRITIQUE
-------------------------------------------------------------

A. 'EXTERNAL' (not me)

1.  Supersensible Intelligences ---

	presumed separate/external, beyond ordinary sensory perception
  
	anything not obvious to sensory perception that could
	communicate from beyond the receiver. 

	  e.g. other-dimensional beings, intelligent dwellers 
	  in a spiritual plane, sub-atomic quantum entities, etc.
	----------------------------------------------------

	COMMENT: strict materialists may deny the reality 
		of this class. other obvious qualifiers 
		here regardless of status would be ghosts, 
		demons, spirits, angels, and gods. any 
		co-resident or possessory intelligences 
		such as an invoked or possessing spirit 
		would be covered by class B:1 below.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------

2.   Physical Complex Nervious Systems ---

	presumed separate/external, perceivable sentient beings
  
	ordinarily considered sentient: conscious and aware; 
	presumed somehow capable of constructing a communication 
	and delivering it through its chosen medium.

	  e.g. humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, undiscovered
          life forms with these qualities, etc.
	----------------------------------------------------

	COMMENT: the reality of this class is usually not
		denied, but its ability to construct some
		kind of message for communicating may be
		refuted or presumed non-extant.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------

3.   Physical Simple Nervous Systems ---

	presumed separate/external, 
	perceivable nonsentient living beings
 
	ordinarily considered nonsentient: unconscious or unaware. 

	   e.g. mobile and lowly such as insects or slugs; 
           or comparably static like trees or fungi.
 
	----------------------------------------------------

	COMMENT: the reality of this class is usually not
		a topic of debate except as it may qualify
		in an ability to construct communication.
                a fictional example that I can remember
		appears in some horror films where beings
		like insects develop sentience (as in
		groups of cockroaches or nests of ants).

-----------------------------------------------------------

4. Physical Objects/Phenomena

	presumed separate/external, perceivable nonsentient objects
       
	mobile objects used as vehicles 
	or somehow propelled by other means.

	  e.g. things as diverse as ships and clouds and electrons, 
	  or comparably static objects like books and mountains.
	----------------------------------------------------

	COMMENT: again, the reality of these objects is usually
		presupposed, but their ability to have interior
		experiences and to generate communication is
		typically disputed.

-----------------------------------------------------------

B. INTERNAL

1. Physical Body Portions/Symbiotes/Parasites

	presumed PARTIAL/INTERNAL, specially-recognized communication

	portions of the receiver as well as many agents not 
	ordinarily perceivable without specialized equipment 
	or during special procedures as during an operation, 
	x-ray, etc.

	  e.g. one's arm (as in 'muscle-testing'), an 
	  internal organ such as a kidney, or separable 
	  biological organisms that reside internal to 
	  the receiver's body such as intestinal flora, 
          a tick lodged subcutaneously, or a tape worm.
          also ordinarily supersensible beings like an
	  invading possessory spirit would quality here.
          
	----------------------------------------------------

	COMMENT: the reality of this class is often, 
		but not always presupposed, depending
		upon their character (the supersensible
		may or may not be, for example). their 
		ability to have separate interior 
		experiences and to generate 
		communication may be disputed 
		based on the lack of a complex 
		or separate nervous system (whether
		due to their partial or unevolved nature
		or because they transcend physicality).

-----------------------------------------------------------

2. Imaginary Beings/Objects

	presumed INHERENT/INTERNAL, selectively-perceivable figments

	beings and objects fabricated by some portion of the
	mind of the individual with whom it communicates.
      
	  e.g. multiple-personality disorder; or concepts of
	  self-deception such as delusions or imaginary beings
	  (such as how 'imaginary playmates', perhaps all of 
	  category 1, are seen by strict materialists). 
	----------------------------------------------------

        COMMENT: the reality of this class is often disputed,
                especially in an ontological sense; inasmuch as
                the aspect of the individual is capable of acting
                independently, so is there allowance made for the
                facet of the receiver to construct communications
                that may appear to the receiver ONLY to be somehow
                separate from hir self and consciousness.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I tried to integrate what we have both already discussed,
moved away from the 'real/unreal' dichotomy somewhat (leaving
that for the cosmological intrusion), and attempted to settle
into a consensual and inclusive spectrum of the universe. 

I'm also responding to your suggested taxonomy below.


"angelicusrex" :
# 1. Primary Specially Sensed Communication Agent: (That which founded and
# supports the physical and/or other types of universes i.e. spiritual,
# transdimensional, unseen, unknown; and which was not created, not formed
# from any "thing" seen or unseen, and yet is intelligent, having existence
# within, through and around all other things). {God, the Source, The Prime
# Mover, The Infinite Mind, the One, The All, What Is, Was And Will Be, etc}.

cosmological inasmuch as relation to the real is specified.
we're talking supersensible regardless of what is there.

# 2. Specially Sensed or normally immaterial real agents: (noncorporeal
# entities existing outside the confines of the mind and body of sentient
# physical beings). {Gods, Archangels, Angels, Seraphim, Cherubim, Elohim,
# archons, aeons, devas, genii, devils, demons, sprites, elves, fairies,
# gnomes, animal totems, imaginary playmates, interdimensional beings etc.).

I don't see much difference between your 1 and 2 here, 
ultimately, excepting what is agreed in terms of cosmology. 
I hope that I'm not being arbitrary here.

# 3. Sensible agents: (Living beings).
#     A. Mobile sensible agents: (Living organisms which move through time and
# space). {Higher and Lower Animals: birds, reptiles, mammals, plankton,
# bacterium, parasites, space aliens, etc.).

we differentiate here by virtue of "Higher/Lower" in a conventional
manner that is useful. I've continued to use this distinction above.

#      B. Apparently immobile sensible agents: (Living organisms which are
# rooted to one spot, relative to our awareness). {Trees, bushes, plants of
# various sorts)

I conjoined "Lower Animals" with plants and other organisms 
into a mass that is typically not presumed to be able to
speak to us in any perceivable way (i.e. the criteria for
presumption is 'discernably regular communication').

#      C. Special sensible mobile agents: (Nonliving special entities that
# function and thrive through random contact with/and use of living
# organisms).{Viruses or prions, protoplasm, ectoplasm, or other
# manifestations which are produced as "matter" from living organisms or which
# subsist or rely on same).

some of these (C.) would not ordinarily be sensible with the eye.
may I presume this is what you mean by 'special'? same as the 
first couple of categories. special techniques or technology for
gaining access to sensing them (as appearance or specially-
developed attunement, etc.) seems to be necessary. I like that
distinction greatly and am not sure if I sufficiently paid
attention to methods of sensory-perception (e.g. technology). 

#       D. Sensible nonmobile, nonliving, tissues: (Organs such as the liver
# or heart, etc. used to effect readings by others like shamans or pirests,
# etc. Human bones, chicken bones, sheep or other entrails, teeth, bile,
# blood, mucous, feathers, scutes or scales, skins, hair, fingernails, etc.
# Also includes tea leaves, sticks, cast stones, etc.).

this is a lovely category and I tried to cover it by 
establishing class-set A./B. and in particular B:1 above. 
see if I did it justice.

# 4. Mass/Energy sensible agents: (Nonliving, non protoplasmic, mobile waves
# and energetically produced or generated particles. Photons, Electrons,
# Atoms, Molecules, radioactive waves, radio or television waves, plasma
# energy, suns, stars, moons, plaentoids, asteroids, comets, meteors, planets,
# dark matter, metals, liquids, gases,  rocks, crystals, etc.)
# 5. Constructed/Manufactured sensible agents: ( Devices manufactured by
# sentient beings for communications with the otherwise or usually non-sensed
# world, subconscious or unconscious mind) {Magic 8 Balls, tarot cards,
# astrology charts, I Ching coins, Televisions, talking cars, toasters,
# computers, boats, or any type of machinery both mechanical and/or electronic
# in nature}.

--------------------------- your 'real' stops here

I tried to put all the 'ordinarily noncommunicating objects'
together based on conventional notions of what can talk or
generate conversation. from there cosmology distinguishes,
based on what can and cannot communicate.

# 6. Mentally created  unreal agents (mental or visual illusions created by
# the minds of sentient physical beings). {Including but not limited to:
# Fictional constructs, characters from books, movies, plays, dreams, visions,
# drug induced hallucinations, daydreams or play).

I'm inclined to agree that 'illusions' and 'real/unreal' 
distinctions will not be useful for inclusivity. I think
to be inclusive discerning is valuable only WHERE 
they are and how they relate to the receiver of the 
communication (thus my new taxonomy focusses on these
types of differences and takes them into account).

# David St. Albans 2003, all rights reserved. Please leave this copyright
# notice on the original list, attached to any other revisions or deletions,
# etc. Thank you.

feel free to do what you like with my text here. my aim is to
brainstorm and care little for constraint beyond proper
attribution in quotation and republishing.

nagasiva
====================================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Psychic Communicating Agent Taxonomy Discussion
From: nagasiva 
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 05:21:41 GMT

50030724 viii om

angelicusrex:
#># If you believe we exist then you must presuppose
#># that other entities like ourselves have developed
#># elsewhere.

nagasiva:
#> I need not.

angelicusrex
# You do if you are trying to have a discussion.


Tom put his finger on the distinction here: I needn't
presuppose those other entities at all. I may allow
for the possibility and even consider it likely, 
entertaining such a potential for it, of course.

# ...If there is a chance then a true skeptic must be
# open to the possibility ....

of course. the distinction is minor, but logical.

#># Otherwise, other species, such as turtles and sharks,
#># which are alien to our own species, could not exist.
#
# There are things which are different than us by a huge
# factor, right here on our planet. Logically it would
# follow that other life on other planets might
# exist but also might be thoroughly different than us.

I can understand and agree with this latter statement, yes.

# Even to the point of being unsensed by us. This means
# these "beings" fall into your taxonomy.

of course. potential beings with capacity to communicate
via psychic skills, agreed.

# Aliens are NOT imaginary beings.

they are until I know about them. that is, they are only
imaginary to me even though there may be a good chance 
that there are representative examples into whom we'll run.

# They are possible real beings....

precisely.

#># Look at the plethora of forms that exist here. Some not
#># even based on oxygen exchange. This proves that life
#># can and will develop in other mediums.
#>
#> again, I don't follow the logic, but it does seem unlikely

#> that life as we know it is unique in the cosmos, and
#> inasmuch as this is your point, agreed.
# 
# Boy, you are hard to win over to any agreement!

it wasn't a disagreement of concept, just that I couldn't
follow your logic. I'm used to formal logic problems,
puzzles, mathematics and philosophy, so I may be very
clear about my inability to follow certain trajectories
of thought, even though I may agree with what you MEAN.
once I discover what you mean I'll say whether or not I
find the same to be true. please don't take my assertion
that I don't follow your logic to indicate that I disagree.

#># It also logically follows if one form of life could develop
#># on this planet in a relatively short amount of time to
#># travel into space, so could others....

# ...We can specualte beings with hugely extended lifespans.
# Travelling [may be] harder or easier than we suspect. It
# has little to do with the taxonomy of critters.

agreed. more possible beings.

#># All these lists must necessarily reflect our relative
#># viewpoints.
#>
#> not if they are done well.
# 
# Well you have a lot better sense of your ability to reach
# beyond the bounds of your humanity and out into the realm
# of the Universally Acceptable.

my impression is that a focus on what makes psychic
communication possible will enable that kind of widespread
application. from what I can see a good number of us will
probably agree that cognitive function will be necessary:
i.e. mental communication requires a mind. to what one may
ascribe a mind will of course vary. some may ascribe a mind
to what might be called 'lower animals', in which case they
no longer qualify for that 'lower' status. establishing the
qualities or criteria for psychic communication in general
may be a first step in talking about angelic messages.

it would for example, generally take immediate steps in
identifying markedly different cosmologies from your own,
in which constructed objects like toasters are not really
considered to have the capacity to generate thought that
would precede communication, let alone a psychic ability
to communicate it to humans thereafter.

# I highly doubt either of our taxonomys would even be
# considered by the Amazing [Randi] or Albert Einstein
# or even Pat Robertson....

if they will grant psychic communication is possible,
then I don't know what kinds of requirements they think
will be necessary for the construction of messages and
reception of them. I'll bet they may find my suggestions
quite palatable, regardless of where they may draw their
own cosmological lines in the sand.

# ...it's simple enough just to agree on some
# terminologies for discussion purposes.

in part that's what I want to achieve with you. :>

#># What you say is "immobile" might actually be mobile.

# ...Plants may appear to be immobile to us, but they
# are moving within the earth.... So you can only truly
# say a thing is "apparently immobile" relative to
# yourself and your own state.... 

agreed. you've persuaded me to shift away from the actual
qualities like mobility of these things. thanks. see? I
can be persuaded of the ineffectiveness of qualities of
what we're discussing. we're not so far apart as all that.

#># What you say is non-sensed, may indeed be sensed by
#># something else.
#>
#> I'm definitely doing it human-centered. my intent is
#> to be inclusive *to humans*.
# 
# Then it is not meant to be Universal.

oh I see what you mean. no, I didn't mean that I thought
that all humans would agree with it, only that it should
be *usable by all humans to approach a consideration of
what kinds of beings ought be considered for potentially
communicating, psychically*. I think that sets of classes
of possible beings should be as easy as analyzing language
and communication, psychic as a subset of overall modes.

# You cannot have something be "inclusive" without agreement
# at least between two parties.

that depends on how entrenched the parties are in their
respective cosmological axioms. I see that we're capable
of having a philosophical conversation in which we're
considering alternatives that we may not agree on when
it comes time to discuss axioms of our belief or what
we consider to be more likely than not. that's fine. my
aim is to be able to incorporate all the cosmologies
that I can think of, perhaps with reference to some of
the more commonplace presuppositions (with qualifications
like 'ordinarily' or 'generally presumed', or 'presumed
by cosmology' for those unsupported by strict perceptual
consensus). 

'stars' are different, no matter what we take them to be, 
than 'spirits', because almost everyone has a direct 
physical experience of stars, whereas spirits are less 
commonly perceived or presumed to exist. this was in part
what was so inspiring about the comparison between dogs
and angels and toasters. it was quickly highlighting the
commonplace categorical commonalities that many of us 
may take for granted in dealing with others (and this I 
find extremely fascinating, philosophically -- though I
live with and know others for whom it is VERY TEDIOUS).

# ...Why are you so stubborn on these tiny, insignificant
# points? But so open on the major significant ones?

probably language difficulties, like modems trying to
synch up before reaching a mesh in resonant tones. ;>

#> sure we can, but we might mistake some terms/axioms.
# 
# Then it is like speaking two languages.

precisely. 

# ...If you are going to throw in axioms and terms that
# I don't understand, this won't go far.

no doubt. I hope I'm coming closer to a mesh now. :>
let me know how you think we're doing. I have learned
already a great deal about how you have categorized
angels and how you think they may be identified, for
example. this type of exchange is edifying for all who
are witnessing it, whether or not they participate.

nagasiva
==========================================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Angelic Communication and Metaphysics
From: nagasiva 
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:35:56 GMT

50030725 viii   

nagasiva asks about qualifications for perceptions of angels: 
#> ...'ordinarily supersensible'?

angelicusrex:
# ...I don;t think they are beyond our senses or superior to our senses.
# Because some of us are sensitive enough to sense them sometimes.
# I like Ordinarily Immaterial better.

I don't see enough of a difference between those to pursue it.
this class is not usually perceived by others and photographed.
it is subject to dispute and therefore is not the same level
of ontological presence as stones, clouds, and human beings.

angelicusrex:
#># #1. Is the Primary cause of all things.
#>
#> does this somehow appear differently than an angel, or an
#> imaginary friend? ...
# 
# ...if a person says they are speaking to an angels they mean a
# secondary aspect of the Godhead.

we are dependent upon their report as regards the identity
of the agent with whom they are supposed to have engaged 
communication. as such, they are perceptually questionable
and unverifiable, of comparable quality to bacteria except
that we can use machines to discern and photograph bacteria,
have been able to conduct experiments which supported with
consensual data that bacteria do in fact have a separate
and perceivable existence. angels and gods don't have that
consensual status.

# So I just wanted to make a distinction for
# those who get communiques directly from GOD.... and those who
# say they are getting masseages from "a god" Like Vishnu, Jehovah,
# Allah, etc. Which I do equate with Elohim, angels and what
# have you.

an important one for those who believe in these, yes. for those
who do not, angels and ghosts and the rest are pretty much all
of the same general category (ordinarily unperceived; category
disputed as to its existence).

#># #2. ...a list of possible normally immaterial or unsensed "beings"

# ...the Prime Mover [is] "Supersensible." I don't think God will
# be sensed unless God desires it or allows it. I.e. no matter
# how sensitive you are if God wanted to hide, you'd never find Him.
# Or Her.

possible beings are of a different category than discernable 
beings. Tom made this point several times already.

#> ...does their ontological status somehow affect how they are
#> perceived?

in general, as a part of consensual reality, the appearance is rather
the same to those who don't have the ability to sense them (either
because they haven't imagined them (internal intelligences) or because
they are prevented by the power of the ordinarily non-perceived
external entity). this is different than merely using technology 
to enhance the visual power (e.g. microscopes) to discern them. if
you are aware machines which enhance the sensation of gods or 
angels, please inform us of this.

# ...God actually rises above all the other concepts in the taxonomy.

a god, spirit or ghost are effectively the same where those who
do not believe in their existence are concerned. one may DISbelieve
in the existence of clouds, but those can be photographed and pointed
to. photography and pointing doesn't usually work for gods, 
despite what those convinced of it maintain.

# God is a beingness which is everywhere all at once.

not demonstrated. there are facile 'proofs' of course, 
but all of these are based on fallacies of logic. 

# Whereas gods reside in "places" paradise, heaven, spirit,
# valhalla, etc.

allegories? symbols of the reality? pointers to internal facets?

# the GOD which created the entire ball of wax

Creation neither demonstrated nor apparent. the problem is 
the complete lack of apparency except what is dependent 
upon belief to shape the character of perception.

# may in fact consider His?Herself to be different than all other
# beings.

how fictional beings or internal facets may regard themselves is,
of course, inconsequential. the objective is to make their status
in cosmology transparent, and as such ghosts/spirits/angels/gods
are all part of the same to those who don't have experience of
them (because there are no photographic reports, particularly).

#> ...this taxonomy pertains to PSYCHIC COMMUNICATION.
# 
# I have heard many people say they have had psychic experiences with higher
# animals, horses, dolphins, whales, dogs, etc.

their experience is not transparent to us. they may be mistaken
or lying. therefore, having not confirmed it ourselves, their
report has the same status as toasters until we do in fact
experience it ourselves. I've heard people say that they've
had psychic experiences with toasters. at least with a toaster
one can be sure that the TOASTER is itself separable from the 
imagination. the communication? disputed.

# I have never heard of anyone hearing a psychic communication
# from say a paramecium or a flatworm.

less common, agreed.

# ...if we are talking pyschic communications then the lower animals
# I think stand on a lower level for possible communications.

those levels are some of what I was getting at, yes. we're talking about
typical attributed communication skills and perceivability that may be
based on technology or developed sensitivities (i.e. disputed).

#> I'm not aware of observable attempts by plants or any other beings
#> but humans to attempt psychic communication.
# 
# Many trees have been worshiped as having gods or entities within them or
# being in and of themselves sacred and able to answer questions, etc.

thus my 'observable'. Weekly World News may have pictures, 
but that may be the extent of the evidence.

# Moses spoke to a burning bush.

no, Moses is portrayed as having spoken to the God of the Universe through
the mechanism or appearance of a bush that appeared to be consistently
alight with flame. as the bush itself was not consumed and Moses is said
to have spoken with said Cosmocrater through the agency of said bush,
this was not an example of vegetative psychicism.

# I thought it didn't matter who agreed with us as long as we included all
# possibilities of communicant?

all possible classes, yes. where we divide them in part depends on the
criteria for discernment. omitting nonconsensual data, we're left with
categories of apparency and identity on the one hand (into which classes
a goodly number may fall based on our lack of discernment capacity) and
ability to communicate on the other (based on cosmological axioms, but
as a character for consideration a necessary one for the consideration
which we will perforce presume possible for the purpose of discussion).

#> neither lower animals nor plants are known to communicate psychically.
# 
# I would read more literature on the subject if I were you.

can you recommend documentation for this psychic communication?

#> psychic communication is not a consensually-presumed activity, 
#> actually, amongst human beings.

this is not conjecture. it is observable. there is no consensus
on psychic communication. compare sonic communication, in which
there is widespread consensus that language and spoken messages
are extent and meaningfully expressed (amongst human beings,
even sometimes between humans-dolphins or humans-other-apes,
especially where it may extend to symbolism or button-pushing,
as with Koko the Gorilla and her Macintosh computer -- this 
is not by iteself evidence of *psychic* communication, however).

#> the intersection of 'spirit' and 'mind' sometimes
#> predisposes people to think that transphysical entities are able to
#> manage where ordinary animals/plants or conventional humans are not.
# 
# This is conjecture....

agreed. the intent was a discernment of capacity to communicate: something
which is necessarily a consideration in constructing the taxonomy (if
there is no possibility of communicating, then the class is irrelevant).

psychic communication requires two initial qualities:

       -------------------------------------
	1. EXISTENCE

          that which doesn't exist cannot communicate or do anything
      
             Region of Dispute:
	     A) LIMITED -- formed as part of imagination
	     B) SEPARATE -- not dependent upon imagination to exist

       -------------------------------------
        2. PSYCHIC COMMUNICATION ABILITY

          that which has no ability to communicate psychically is not
          a candidate for consideration of classes of agents doing so.

             Region of Dispute:
             A) COGNITIVE FUNCTION -- observed or presumed intellect
             B) SUPRA-ORDINARY COGITATION -- intellect beyond observation

       -------------------------------------

establishing 1 (what exists) proceeds from consensual perception
to divergent perceptual reports. 

establishing the qualification for 2 (what may be able to 
communicate psychically given the presumption of its 
possibility) lies mostly beyond our ability and will rest 
upon cosmological foundations.

# I am trying to reduce my taxonomy to the "ability to communicate" at all....

cool. establishing what commucation is will become important, then, as
compared with what is emission of sound that does not relate to messages
so much as to sonic byproduct. my focus is psychic communication, since
this appears to be the primary method by which angels communicate.

we might also break this down further

       -------------------------------------------
        3. ONTOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF COSMOLOGY

          dependent upon the cosmology, there are differences of
          connected intelligences presumed

             Region of Dispute:
             A) INTERNALLY GENERATED -- apparent agent imagined
             B) EXTERNALLY EXTANT -- apparent agent encountered

       -------------------------------------------
	
# If a thing can communicate, it will have the ability to do so in
# various ways, including psychic.

I don't follow that logic. it isn't established what has the capacity to
engage psychic communication (it could be that only internal subsets of
consciousness can truly engage it and people generalize into cosmological
presuppositions what are projected beyond this internal phenomena for 
their own purposes or based on their own information). communication 
EXCLUDING the psychic is also a possibility.

# What if someone saw a hive of ants spell out the word
# "REPENT!"? This would mean either the ants had an ability to pick up a
# message from an ordinarily immaterial being, or that one of the beings was
# controlling the ants. 

identifying the agent of communication is therefore important. in part this
was the point of talking about angels, dogs and toasters, what might be
impersonating what, etc.  I know of no penultimate decision-tree for the
establishment of First Communication Cause. one is placed, epistemologically,
in a very similar position with respect to cosmic origination as compared
with communication origination. how can we tell that what we are identifying
as the source of the communication isn't just relaying, or a sock-puppet?
ultimately, there is no way to be sure.

knowledge about existence parallels that about communication.

# Recently there was the report of a talking fish. It
# was heard by a Hassidic Jew and an Orthodox Christian. The Jew felt it was a
# reincarnated prophet. the Christian thought it was the devil. The fish
# spoke. Fish do not normally speak. It said "Repent! Look at your lives now!"
# or something like this. Was this the fish? The devil? An angels? God? or a
# reincarnated entity? Our taxonomy must include all these possibilites.

2 classes (fish, ordinarily nonsensed agents) are all that are required here.

#> I'm calling APPEARANCE (sensibility) and COMMUNICABILITY (sentience):
# 
# there are some scientists who consider the possibility that DNA itself may
# be somehow sentient and is using all of us to replicate itself.

use isn't communication per se.

# It can communicate information.

psychically? I don't think that's being presumed by these scientists. ;>

# And it can possible sense it's own existence. Yet DNA without organic
# molecules, is simply a static, preorganic molecular chain. Again, we
# must cover all possibilities.

sensed partial sentient until demonstrated autonomous and sentient of its
own construct.

#> A. consensually agreed as extant because of their external appearance
#>
#>     1. sensible sentients -- visible sentient life forms
#>               demonstrating higher thought and overt
#>               communication skills
#>
#>             e.g. humans, dolphins
#>
#>
#>     2. sensible partial sentients -- pieces or composites
#>               of sentient beings whose portion or contextual
#>               whole demonstrates higher thought and overt
#>               communication skills
#>
#>             e.g. body parts of sentients,
#>                          cultures/societies, planets
#>
#>
#>     3. sensible nonsentients -- less complex visible life forms;
#>               visible objects; all without perceivable
#>               higher cognitive skills
#>
#>                 e.g. rats, insects, trees; cars, keyboards, stones
#>
#>
#> B. presumed, based on cosmology
#>
#>     1. ordinarily supersensible sentients -- variably sensible
#>              entities whose intelligence or consciousness is
#>              comparable or more advanced as compared with
#>              sensible sentients
#>
#>                 e.g. ghosts of the dead, angels, gods
#>

#>     2. ordinarily supersensible nonsentients -- whether too
#>              small to be perceived or in some spectrum of
#>              perception beyond human capacity, these are
#>              typically presumed not to incorporate higher
#>              cortical constructs that would make
#>              communication likely
#>
#>                 e.g. protozoans, paramecia, viruses, magnetic
#>                      or energy fields or rays,
#>                      subatomic or molecular objects,
#>                      and any number of merely nondiscernable
#>                      ontological phenomena usually regarded
#>                      as nonsentient
 
# I think my taxonomy covered all of the above. I see no further need to cut
# the taxonomies into new ones.

no improvement suggestions?! ok, then I'll rest on this and see how 
well it may facilitate our continued discussion. :>

# ...it's time to discuss things now that we have little pigeon holes
# to put things in.

keen. the shared quality ordinarily supersensible agents have is that
their existence (and thereafter capacity to communicate) is disputed.
this is usually not shared by objects or noncognitive animals/plants.

# ...Apparently ectoplasm can be filmed or photographed, touched and
# seen.

URL? I'm aware of no consensual agreement on the existence of it.
usually spiritualists that created it (as the brothers in their
cabinets with trumpets and manifesting ectoplasm) deceived others
into thinking that it was something unusual. later Houdini and
others explained the ruse.

# So can viruses. So can prions. they are therefore not superior
# too or beyond human senses.

assisted by technology, agreed. as far as I know, nobody claims to
be able to visually observe viruses or bacteria with eyesight alone.

#> you can tell how people think of it by
#> the language (as a kind of substan puddles of it or something,
# 
# Perhaps this is something that the Victorians who saw ectoplasm neglected to
# do. Perhaps it was the ectoplasm itself that was causing the "channel" to
# speak? The whole idea is that the ectoplasm is a physical form of a ghost or
# spirit. Something almost solidifying. So perhaps someone should have
# attempted to communicate with it. After all, it is an odd thing to see where
# previously no odd thing existed.

it must have a half-life. as far as I know no ectoplasm yet exists.
if you know where they've preserved some, please do inform us of this.

# I still don;t consider toasters as communicants per se. However an odd thing
# is happening to my car. The nicer I am to it, the more it "self-heals!" The
# turn signals began working for no reason, after having been broken for a
# year. The door lock on the driver's side now works, even though it has not
# worked for 6 years! I did nothing to either of these devices, neither did
# anyone else. But the more we talk about getting rid of it, the better it
# acts. Go figure.

if the automobiles tells you it is one, psychically, get back to us. ;>

nagasiva
===========================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Angelic Communication and Metaphysics
From: nagasiva 
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:49:18 GMT

50030728 viii om

"angelicusrex" :
# Sounds to me that you want to call all beings that do not exist 
# and are scientifically not defined or catalogued as "imaginary."

not true. I want to agree that their existence is generally not
presupposed by disagreeing parties (as compared to other classes
of object or being such as humans or toasters or dogs). you seem
to wish to avoid the latter clear cosmological intersections 
for some reason (i.e. people tend to agree about the existence 
of dogs and toasters but not gods or angels). they put into 
*contrast* the areas of disagreement, and this may concern you.

# I cannot support this....

that seems to be because you've presumed that the beings with 
whom you are speaking are something more than some internal 
imagination-construct. I think that I understand, and don't 
require your agreement at all even to consider angelic 
communication real and something reproduceable. if I've
misunderstood you, please offer your correction. thanks.

# Therefore we have no more common ground for discussion.

I don't follow your logic. we have extensive common ground
for discussion. for example, we might discuss what angelic
communication yields in terms of content (something which Tom
continues to focus on -- you referred to it in the abstract
in response to my inquiry about your criteria ascertaining
their cosmic status), or how to go about replicating the
angelic communication experience (if indeed this is possible).

# I thought you wanted to catalogue "psychic communicants." 

yes. you made it clear that you saw no benefit to continuing
a refinement on those taxonomies the last time I presented one
which I thought might satisfy us both in some way. you claimed
that the one I presented was as good as the other two we had
shared, and refused to critique it. thus I have also abandoned
the attempt to refine them and moved on to discussing the topic
proper in a variety of ways which may or may not utilize these
shared taxonomic lexicons. :> please do not take my lack of
strict adherence to any of our bridges as having 'blown them up'.

# ...the quality of "psychicness" is also not found in any
# scientific catalogues.

you're the one talking about "scientific" qualities here. you
will probably not see me refer to these except in support of
a particular (reductionist, materialist) perspective (one 
that does NOT coincide with my preferred presumptions.

# According to scientists there is no proof that anything
# communicates via ESP. ESP is speculative.

your best point here is that there is an assertion by the
scientific community that there is no reliable evidence 
in support of it. the category of "communication via ESP" 
is meaningless, since ESP (extra-sensory perception) is a 
*receptive* skill, and communication requires expressive 
skill. however, this begins to touch on the metaphysics of 
psychicism and as such is another area of common ground that 
resides within the entire subject of angelic communication.

there are a variety of possible configurations in 
general communication which are seldom examined with 
skeptical interest that analyze the elements in a 
communication per se, let alone angelic communication:

	* the conceiver -- this is the being concocting the message
	
	* the transmitter -- this is the being/agent transmitting
	                     the message
	
	* the receiver -- this is the being receiving the message
	
	* the parser -- this is the being parsing the message

there is no requirement that any of these need be identical,
though typically the roles are assumed by single participants
(conceiver-transmitter and receiver-parser, for example).

in angelic communication, the conceiver is a variable which is
usually dependent upon the cosmology of the participant. those
who believe in the separation of participants will sometimes
ascribe independence to the angels, sometimes reduce them to
mere expressive agents of a transcendent divinity. there are,
of course, also those who think of angels as internal agents
even of an internal transcendent being referred to as 'God'.

# Which means your taxonomy can only include "real"
# scientifically established things and beings.

this is your straw man which requires no response on my part
as I do not agree that it obtains within my expression.
neither does any of my taxonomies include a discernment of
the "real" itself, nor have I attempted to identify this.

# Which takes angels out of the mix entirely.

given your presumptions, correct. I think I have corrected
your misplaced inferences above and we may continue if you
have any interest (I continue to and will discuss it with
all who have such expressed interest).

# You built this bridge, then you blew it up.

standing on two sides of a cosmological crevasse, it may seem
as if a lack of a bridge's use indicates its having been blown
apart. however, those three taxonomies still exist and might
be used by any of us to interpret one another in friendly
ways. your abandonment of communication on the matter merely
because the refinement of the terminological bridges we might
use to understand one another's expression has temporarily
subsided is an indication of your lack of patience and your
willingness to presuppose some antagonistic motivation on my 
part (yet again). 

as I have recommended before, I suggest that you don't do 
that if you really want to talk about angelic communication 
because the subject does extend beyond your axiomatic set,
and your conversation with your projections undermines your 
entire expression on the topic by demonstrating your inability 
to discern between what is internal to you as a biased 
mistake, and what is external and an extant phenomenon.

since you say you have a mission to communicate convincingly
about your experiences, I figured you'd want to know what
those who are skeptical will perceive as clear evidence to
the contrary of your testimony -- your public inability to
distinguish between what someone contends and your internal
interpretation of them might indicate that you cannot tell
the difference between your own internal consciousness and
that which you project as 'outside of you'. this effectively
constitutes a contra-indication about the reliability of 
your report.

nagasiva:
#> we are dependent upon their report as regards the identity
#> of the agent with whom they are supposed to have engaged
#> communication. as such, they are perceptually questionable
#> and unverifiable, of comparable quality to bacteria except
#> that we can use machines to discern and photograph bacteria,
#> have been able to conduct experiments which supported with
#> consensual data that bacteria do in fact have a separate
#> and perceivable existence. angels and gods don't have that
#> consensual status.
#
# I rest my case.

I don't think I follow your logic. perhaps if you made it
more clear what your case was, and how my paragraph above in
some way reflects your case, I would understand you better.

# Toasters and dogs, as psychic communicants also have no
# consensual status.

I thought I made it clear that there is no consensus about
*psychic communication* as a whole. as such, it is hardly
surprising to discover that a subset of the discussion 
is not consensually agreed. this should be compared and
contrasted with consensual agreement about agent status
(whether or not the agent is agreed to *exist*: the above 
paragraph clearly delineates that disagreement, rather 
than the *different quality of dispute that tends
to obtain about capacity to communicate* regarding the
class of ghosts/spirits/angels/gods compared with others).

in fact, I set up a taxonomy which was based both the
consensually-presumed agent status given as a foundation
which accepts the reality of psychic communication AND
provides a context wherein the presumption of its 
actuality may be located (capacity + existence, given
the axiom of psychic communication's reality).

you said you didn't see how my last differed from your
or my previous terminological lattice. I hope you now 
see its greater value inasmuch as it transcends popular
scientific paradigms and accepts differential of likeli-
hood where the conceiver-transmitter identity is
considered.  i.e. it allows a discernment between types
of conceiver/transmitter while accepting the reality 
of psychic communication as axiomatic.

quality of ontological status is an issue even amongst
those who agree that angelic communication takes place.
for example, some think angels are entirely interior,
some think they are entirely external, and others think
of angels as something somehow between these extremes.
taking all of these perspectives into consideration 
has always been my objective (i.e. inclusivity).

# P.S. I could give a shit what Tom thinks. 

whether it is Tom or someone else, I like to attribute
what I think are valid points of discussion to those who
are raising them. if you want to ignore issues just
because it came from a source you dislike, that will be
somewhat of an obstacle to our continued conversation
(which need not involve any of our cited sources).

# He can talk to his dog's ass for all I care.

I presume you'll restrict your involvement to the topics
and correspondents of your interest. I'll do likewise. :>

# I'm done with this. It was a game and a waste of time.

this was in part I why suggested that you refrain from your
projections. you seem to be very bad at interpreting what
my motivations are and don't know me very well. in any case,
thanks for what you've contributed so far. I find it valuable
and not at all a waste of my time, regardless of what you do
or consider to be your misspent energies. :>

in case it matters to you, I do think I have experience of
what I call angelic communication. if you really want to
discuss that, what it is, what it includes, then what we've
accomplished so far is, I think, a helpful foundation. if
you now wish to abandon the conversation, I can accept that.

nagasiva
======================================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Psychic Communication and Metaphysics
From: nagasiva 
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:11:41 GMT

50030728 viii om

angelicusrex:
#># Moses spoke to a burning bush.

nagasiva: 
#> no, Moses is portrayed as having spoken to the God of the Universe through
#> the mechanism or appearance of a bush that appeared to be consistently
#> alight with flame. as the bush itself was not consumed and Moses is said
#> to have spoken with said Cosmocrater through the agency of said bush,
#> this was not an example of vegetative psychicism.

aethyr-augoeides:
# vegetative psychism is known not to proceed by these means?
# LOL!

:> means? we weren't discussing the means, but the ontological status
of the being with whom the communiation took place. the medium (a bush)
is usually the target or communicator in vegetative psychicism, whereas
the bush as media agent (representative for something transcendental)
doesn't indicate that the bush constitutes the divinity itself, no.

compare something like "The Secret Life of Plants", in which there is
a presumption that the plants have internal experiences which may be
shared or somehow sensed by the human being, and the media icon of
the computer monitor, which exhibits signs from beyond it which you
may infer come from some other entity (as from me in this case) quite
aside from any experience you may believe the monitor may have.

nagasiva
=======================================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Angelic Communication and Metaphysics
From: nagasiva 
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:04:22 GMT

50030728 viii om

re: the story of Moses being spoken to by a burning bush.

'Saint'/"angelicusrex" :
# The point is a bush both spoke and burned without being consumed.

we are led to believe that the bush was not an ordinary bush,
nor was it an ordinary bush on fire. we might presume, unless
some residue (carbon, smoke, etc.) remained, that it was in
fact a mere appearance that only Moses saw (i.e. an internal
experience which he took to be something external). however,
there is insufficient evidence given in the story as I know 
it, to make an informed assessment of the ontological status 
of the bush. several other alternatives present themselves,
based on ontological axioms.

# So bushes have to be included in the taxonomy. 

vegetative psychicism would be included as that communication
by consensually-agreed lower life forms and objects whose
status as communication (rather than existence) is subject
to dispute. agreed.

# ...I was never in agreement that all things have a psychic
# facility to communicate. 

of course you weren't. few are. that was in part my point
in setting up a description of possible communication agents.

# She seems to think it has to be real, visible and sensible 
# to be a communicator. 

let's examine this criteria (which I DO NOT agree I've 
asserted) in the light of my recent expression. the
qualities of "visible" and "sensible" are redundant.
here are those presumed qualities I've suggested:

#       -------------------------------------
#         1. EXISTENCE
# 
#           that which doesn't exist cannot communicate or do anything

this is the only rational character of "the real", and I presume
that you will agree that if something doesn't exist (isn't real)
it cannot be an agent attempting to communicate with us. 


Temporal Delimiters

there ARE extentions of 'existence' that might be presumed 
possible but not the same as 'real'. one example is that found 
within Rowling's Harry Potter series, in which a magician
('Riddle', in '...Chamber of Secrets') communicates *through 
time via the mechanism of a book*. the reader of the book (in
one case Harry, then later another) serves to anchor that 
past magician's presence within the time-period of the reader 
by receiving communications in the pages of the book and, 
through weakness of will, becoming possessed by the mage from 
the past. in this instance the past magician no longer exists 
*per se*, but is given a limited form (possessory) of existence
and an ability to communicate *from the past into the present*,
thence beyond this using the possessed as further medium.
as such I would agree that 'unreality' in this limited or
similarly limited contexts would constitute a kind of
'non-existence' with respect to the receiver. 

another facet of this discussion with respect to ordinarily
nonsensible agents like gods and angels is whether they may
be said to *be within time*. some consider deities and their
messengers or extensions to be 'eternal' or beyond the bounds
of time, in which case their status of 'existence' is subject
to dispute or limitation depending on what 'existence' includes.

this is why the following region of dispute becomes paramount: 
#              Region of Dispute:
#              A) LIMITED -- formed as part of imagination
#              B) SEPARATE -- not dependent upon imagination to exist

typically what is considered 'real' is what is independent of
imagination, but it need not be the case. 'imaginary friends'
might be considered an ontological phenomenon despite 
whatever dependence upon the imagination it may in fact have.
it may also be the case that the imagination is somehow used
by the agent of communication as *the medium of the message*,
in which case it may function in a comparable manner to how
the book in the Potter series allowed communication from an
otherwise nonapparent 'dimension'.
 
#        -------------------------------------
#         2. PSYCHIC COMMUNICATION ABILITY
# 
#           that which has no ability to communicate psychically is not
#           a candidate for consideration of classes of agents doing so.

the selection for this is usually cosmology-based, and the
region of dispute is cosmological, described entirely here:
#              Region of Dispute:
#              A) COGNITIVE FUNCTION -- observed or presumed intellect
#              B) SUPRA-ORDINARY COGITATION -- intellect beyond observation

this is the dispute-region between angels, dogs and toasters.
 
#        -------------------------------------
#         3. ONTOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF COSMOLOGY
# 
#           dependent upon the cosmology, there are differences of
#           connected intelligences presumed
# 
#              Region of Dispute:
#              A) INTERNALLY GENERATED -- apparent agent imagined
#              B) EXTERNALLY EXTANT -- apparent agent encountered

I'm still not sure that 3 here is necessary, and it may just
constitute an elaboration or subset of number 1 above. none 
of these 1, 2, or 3 deal with the quality of being sensible, 
though some aspect of communication will indeed require the 
application of perception on the part of the receiver-parser
in order to receive the communication at all, wherever that
message may be said to appear.

# Therefore that leaves out a lot of other things or causes them 
# to go into the "imaginary" category... 

the confusion between 'imagined' and 'unreal' is unnecessary.
things may be imagined but real, for example, in the sense
that the imaginary has the status of truly existing, despite
the differentiated level of ontological status it may be
given. for example, Platonists and Neo-Platonists might be 
said by strict materialists to elevate the imaginary to the 
status of the transcendental real, the 'manifest world' to 
the status of the merely apparent. 

contrariwise, the Platonist might assert that the strict
materialist mistakes the relative and apparent for the
ultimate source and cause of the real.

metaphysics determines all here.

# Read my previous taxonomy. It was good. It even influenced [his].

absolutely. all 3 were pretty good, I think. they'll help us
to see the entire subject more clearly if we persevere and
refrain from attributing nefarious motivations to one another.

# Then [he] decided to change the entire concept. 

it was never a strict concept, but a taxonomy intended to be
applicable across a range of concepts. I'm sorry if you got
the wrong idea there. perhaps you'll come to understand its
usage over time in extension beyond your limited cosmology.
perhaps you'll be able to see my application of it to a wide
variety of cosmological contexts (as above between the strict
materialists and Platonists).

# It was never agreed upon that only things which 
# communicate "psychically" be included. 

that is correct. it was intended to be inclusive so as 
to account for all possible psychic communications.

# Rather it was supposed to be all things that human beings 
# may have psychic communications with.

completely agreed here, inclusive of cosmologies which
transcend yours and any I may advance. :>

# Bushes have no facility for speech....

not established. this cosmological presupposition is with
what I disagreed early on based on shamanistic perspectives
about which you either are disputing or which you have at
this point for some reason forgotten. if you want me to
explain that again I'll do so. I provided a thorough 
explanation already but am willing to talk with you at 
length about it because it is included in a discussion
about the phenomena which constitute angelic communication.

# Therefore it did not "speak" per se, it was talking to 
# Moses mind. 

not established. it may have been 'miraculous' and therefore
an actual bush talking as a medium for the transcendental
divinity. if you have additional information about the
story which indicates metaphysical underpinnings for the
conversation said to have taken place between Moses and 
his God, then please bring these forth. thanks.

# Which means an ordinarily immaterial being was speaking 
# from the appearance of a bush, or through a bush it 
# made fire proof. 

those are certainly alternative interpretations of
what occurred. we are only given the account from the
perspective of the character Moses, and cannot really
conclude much, as I see it, without more data.

# However bushes, shrubs and trees have also given
# psychic communiqués.

which differentiates the espoused communicating agent
between the bush and the agent using the bush. this is
again the point to which many of us have returned in
a consideration of Origin of Communication.  i.e. it is
not possible to establish with certainty a 'First Cause'
with respect to the communication and we must at some
point infer or conclude as to it based on whatever 
evidence we may be given as receiver or as some 
third-party witness.

thanks for continuing this discussion. I value it.
nagasiva
==========================================================

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.religion.angels,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Psychic Contact: Gods, Dogs, and Angels
From: nagasiva 
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:42:30 GMT

50030729 viii om

nagasiva cautions against listening to just any spirit:
#> it might also count what those angels are saying and what level of
#> authority the listener provides to said angels. there are examples
#> where people obeyed noncorporeally-originating voices and their
#> actions wound up leading them to harm others and become imprisoned.

I compared using random methods for contacting angels or accepting 
the word of an otherwise unknown agent to dialing random numbers on 
the telephone and hoping to get some particular type of authority 
like a doctor on the line. better to have a reliable directory,
method, or at least get a character-feel consonant with claimed 
identity than to proceed blindly. you seemed to agree.

perhaps you generalized beyond this to reach your false 
conclusions about what I was 'teaching' below, but it 
seems more an attempt to slam me with blatant falsehoods:
something that would concern me about anyone who wished
to instruct me in matters as important as communicating
with angels. beware.


"angelicusrex" :
# I myself have been listening to angels for ten years. I have never been
# imprisoned. My angels teach me how to heal others and how to view the
# Universe and most importantly they put me into contact with God. Is there
# anything else an angel need do, in order to claim both authority and
# attention from us?

were the advice you to receive to prove reliable, I can't 
think of much that would be necessary beyond that, no. all 
we have so far is your word on this matter, combined with 
your strange conversation behaviours exemplified here.

# if I have any problems with this spiritual path it is in that 
# I cannot always follow their advice and be absolutely sure of 
# them, because people like Nagasiva and others my whole life 
# keep teaching all of us to not listen, 

here we begin to see what manner of projection you have achieved
from the minimal inquiries I've advanced and thoughts that I've
shared. apparently you have some problem accepting the perspective 
of others without taking them into yourself and undermining 
your own security in your views. consider this carefully in 
any reflection on your reliability of report.

never have I suggested that you or others should not listen.
your words here are clearly inaccurate, and apparently are part
of your need to mischaracterize those who you perceive to be
challenging to your authority or legitimacy. if this has anything
to do with projected aspersions you were attempting to cast 
upon me previously, then your actions here are again indicative 
of a degree of your instability and unreliabilty of report. 

for my part, I'll qualify your projections with actualities 
for conditions under which I would indeed recommend the actions
that you have falsely described me as generally recommending
so as to inject some substance into our exchange and turn 
the discussion toward the more respectful.


LISTENING

I would stop listening to agents inconsistent and contrary to
my own ethical feelings, those who issue directives if I have
not submitted my will to them and engaged them in such a role,
or those who are critical or derisive in their overall demeanor. 

# to not trust, 


TRUSTING

I would stop trusting agents inconsistent who did not explain
confusing or unethical activities they recommended as being of
benefit to me or my kin.
 
# to demand tests, 

I'm unsure where you got the notion of demanding. perhaps you
are mixing my expressions up with that of others, in which
case you may not be a reliable instructor on how to go about
discerning different communication agents. in our conversations
so far this quality has repeatedly arisen, so this seems likely.

it is possible that you have set about instructing based on a
paucity of actual knowledge and (like many of us) will learn 
the ropes the hard way while attempting to convince others, 
who may suffer under your tutelage, of your authority and the 
relevance of your connections to the real. it is in part my
aim to bring such limitations to light where discernable.


TESTING

I would only *demand* testing in the case of some peculiar
shift in demeanor giving me the impression of some unusual
change in character such that I would wish to verify the
identity of the agent. I might request it in the case that
the communication were new to me, if spirit-communication
*itself* were new to me, or if the new contact made some
kind of grandiose claim which I found frankly dubious
(such as requiring my regard as my God Lord and Master).

# documents [of] authority, 

your sarcasm is indicative of the lack of decorum that you
are bringing to the subject and the forums to which you post.
you ought to desist from it if you wish to sound convincing.


DOCUMENTATION

this is a ridiculous exaggeration intended to deceive or
portray me in an extreme light. those who have eyes to see
will clearly understand I have made no such comment, nor
would the realistic ever demand such a thing from angels.

as regards *demons*, sometimes documents will be required
that they may SIGN, during a pact, for example. how this
signature is obtained probably differs amongst those who
engage them (e.g. in trance, through some supposed 
supramundane means, etc.).

# or other "guarantees" that we are simply not talking 
# to ourselves. 

as guarantees, the facts of listening and trusting are
not of themselves guarantees of anything except about 
the receiver. tests will depend upon their nature in 
order to establish transpersonal intelligence, and even 
then the possibility of inter-subjectivity may obtain,
especially if angels may only have limited effects upon 
the physical world. documents of authority would prove
supernatural, unless perhaps drawn up in trance, and
then would not seem to confirm any specific result.

more importantly, 'talking to ourselves' may be a very
valuable enterprise from which we may all learn, when
engaged in a manner in which we hear clear reflections.
certain philosophers and instructors may bring this to
us when they reflect for us our actuality in exchange
with us in private and public interaction. this is one
important interpretation of what is called 'the Rasul'
amongst muslims as I understand it (final prophet).

# What she doesn't seem to understand is this. Those who 
# hear voices that tell them to do bad things, are 
# perfectly incapable of rational decision making. 

I wasn't aware of that. is this something of which your 
angels have informed you? or did you make a study of 
those criminals who heard voices they were convinced 
were angelic?

# Therefore they cannot simply eschew those voices. 
# they cannot "turn their back" on them, so to speak. 
# They are rather compelled by them. This is called 
# insanity. It happens. 

ok, so you draw a distinction between compulsive
response to voices and choice as regards their 
demands, calling the former 'insanity' and the latter
something else. that's very interesting. thanks.

does it matter whether the hearer *considers* the
demanded action to be "bad"? or will neutral or
good things heard by someone with questionable
ethics perforce be provided by themselves and 
therefore constitute insanity?

# The "voices" they hear are the ones we all hear in 
# our dreams. They are our own voices. And of course 
# are absolutely compelling. God's voice however can 
# be turned on and off. So can angels. You can turn 
# your back on them and say no. And they will never 
# visit you again. They don't ask you to do harm to 
# anyone or anything. They do not intrude. They do 
# not force or compel. 

those are similar to my own criteria (though my words
are not generalized, merely indicative of what is
true for me). thanks for sharing. we seem to agree 
on a few things as regards the character of valuable 
psychic communication agents that we would call angels.

# The problem is, if you are insane and listening 
# to your insane voices, no amount of help, talk by 
# others or urges by others to seek help will work. 

I suppose that's sensible.

# I've watched people go insane. It isn't pretty. 
# Neither is cancer or polio or AIDS or anything we 
# suffer from on this planet. And God doesn't always 
# cure these things. Therefore if you are lucky 
# enough to be disease free and not insane, you are 
# doing well. Talking to God is a good thing to do. 
# It might be a preventative. It certainly cannot 
# hurt. If you want to hurt yourself or others and 
# want to blame it on God, who will stop you?

I place a great deal of reserve on who and what I'll
consider to be "insane", preferring to relegate those
whom I don't understand simply to that category. the
ones who issue proclamations and expect to be taken
as some kind of final authority or get upset and
begin to take potshots I suspect of duplicity or self-
delusion, but cannot ascertain the truth at distance.

your mileage may vary, as they say. :>

nagasiva