Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!masscomp!ulowell!mod-psi From: mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.psi Subject: Re: Science, Psience, etc... Message-ID: <976@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Date: Sun, 25-Jan-87 15:24:59 EST Article-I.D.: ulowell.976 Posted: Sun Jan 25 15:24:59 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 01:37:27 EST References: <940@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Sender: rickheit@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu Reply-To: "Clayton M. Elwell" Distribution: world Organization: The Ohio State University, CIS Dept. Lines: 59 Keywords: Hi people, I'm back... Approved: rickheit@ulowell.UUCP [] In article <940@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> rickheit@hawk writes: >Hi people. > >I have a potential way of looking at things [...] Greetings. A well thought out posting; I have done some thinking along similar lines. Here are some comments: >[...] >Next we have object oriented focussing. This uses external objects/gadgets >(for example: crystals, staves, runes, cards, etc.) to aid the mental >focussing. The object carries at least part of the burden for channeling >the energy/whatever, but the user still controls the reaction (usually :-) External objects can be useful, but as just an aid to mental focus they are (in my experience) critically limited. Although they are much easier to use than pure visualization, they are far less flexible, and tend to lock the practitioner into certain "modes" of use. This is not say I suggest that no one use this method! I myself have used it while learning new techniques. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of using external foci as a matter of course. >Last, but not least, we have ritual focussing. This method uses a primarily >fixed pattern for controlling the elements. This pattern is usually a >combination of specific words, and motions. It also often uses objects (as >in method #2). The good thing about this method of focussing is that the load >on the practitioner is fairly light. The bad thing is that the control is >limted to what the ritual is capable of handling. Most moderns religeous >ceremonies started off as rituals, but as time went on, many of the >meanings were lost and all that was left was empty forms. A ritual involving only one person seems to me to be little different from an external focus. However, if the practitioners understand the principles behind the ritual, it can be more flexible. Also, rituals can be very useful for getting a group of people "in sync," i.e. using a common focus, especially if the members of the group vary in skill. Because they do require (often elaborate) preparation, they cannot be used "on the fly", as it were. >[description of the various conceptual approaches] >Some people do not need analogies to work with, while others rely upon them >havily. Just as some people do not need objects or rituals to focus, while >others use them extensively. I make no judgement as to the relative merits >of one way over the other. > > > Gryphon I suppose I am making judgements, but I hope no one takes them personally. Since (so far), most information on the subject is best gotten by experience, each person ends up with their own personal bias. Since I approach my abilities and experiences in an exploratory way, without any particular goal in mind, I end up with more internally directed & abstract skills than the other kinds. Also, the "scientist" in me doesn't like to take things at face value without trying to figure out why they work the way they do. Comments?