I've been thinking about what Kepple says about Focus 4. If this is all truem then the Focuses can't end at 4. There has to be something further/beyond. The conscioussnesses there didn't seem to know much more? Maybe they are like us back on Earth? Maybe there were some there who did know but were keeping silent.? Maybe there is at least another Focus where Focus 4 is fully understiid. Or maybr each following Focus is similar in the sense of the inhabitants generally don't know about the next one?
The way Frank described Focus 4, it was a complete loss of individuality... I doubt anything "further" could even be definable by a human mind.
Personally, I'm just trying to master getting to Focus 3 oC... LoL
Frank's Focuses oC were an oversimplification, and left out some of Monroe's more scientifically discovered Focus Levels, like Focus 34/35.
Quote from: Pauli2 on December 10, 2010, 10:02:42
...more scientifically discovered Focus Levels...
Impossible, none of this is scientific. He just made it sound scientific because he was so analytical.
Robert Monroe's Focus Levels concept is based on scientific ground. Each Focus Level corresponds to a specific brain wave pattern.
Quote from: Pauli2 on December 10, 2010, 10:02:42
Frank's Focuses oC were an oversimplification, and left out some of Monroe's more scientifically discovered Focus Levels, like Focus 34/35.
First off, I wholehearted agree with Stookie... there's nothing SCIENTIFICALLY discovered in regards to Monroe's Focus Level work. If there was, we wouldn't be having half the discussions that we have here on the Astral Pulse.
Secondly... and might I add, YET AGAIN (because you did this with your Newsletter review as well in at least a dozen places in it), Pauli... you've assumed something that was CLEARLY stated by Frank.
Frank didn't "leave out" Focus 34/35... he just couldn't fit them into his model. Whereby all the other Monroe Focuses he could find a correlation to... he couldn't reconcile 34/35. He was able to follow in those footsteps though, he just disagreed with Monroe's conclusion that they were a separate area of consciousness. You can find this information, I believe, clearly stated in the Phasing Resource.
Quote from: Xanth on December 10, 2010, 12:26:31
First off, I wholehearted agree with Stookie... there's nothing SCIENTIFICALLY discovered in regards to Monroe's Focus Level work. If there was, we wouldn't be having half the discussions that we have here on the Astral Pulse.
This is of course my opinion, but my opinion is, that by basing his definition of Focus Levels on specific brain wave patterns, which have to be the same for all people, Monroe based his work on a
scientific ground. Look for example at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoRbumsJVu4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoRbumsJVu4&feature=related) , Holmes "
Skip" Atwater describes Focus numberings, specifically at
7:37 - 8:05.
Brain wave patterns can be measured by scientifically constructed machines, the measurement can be repeated, and that's why, by my opinion, Monroe used a scientific method, including highly educated and qualified personal.
Quote from: Xanth on December 10, 2010, 12:26:31
Secondly... and might I add, YET AGAIN (because you did this with your Newsletter review as well in at least a dozen places in it), Pauli... you've assumed something that was CLEARLY stated by Frank.
Frank didn't "leave out" Focus 34/35... he just couldn't fit them into his model. Whereby all the other Monroe Focuses he could find a correlation to... he couldn't reconcile 34/35. He was able to follow in those footsteps though, he just disagreed with Monroe's conclusion that they were a separate area of consciousness. You can find this information, I believe, clearly stated in the Phasing Resource.
Xanth, you may be more right than me in choosing the words "
he just couldn't fit.." etc. Anyway, what I based my opinion on, are posts by Frank where he says that he doesn't like the idea of little green men making "
meep-meep" noises, see Frank's posts:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_permanent_astral_topics/wave_1_and_general_phasing_questions-t15371.0.html;msg141092#msg141092 (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_permanent_astral_topics/wave_1_and_general_phasing_questions-t15371.0.html;msg141092#msg141092)
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_permanent_astral_topics/lost_to_the_ages_monroemuldooncastanadaleadbeater-t19639.0.html;msg170037#msg170037 (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_permanent_astral_topics/lost_to_the_ages_monroemuldooncastanadaleadbeater-t19639.0.html;msg170037#msg170037)
Frank also writes something, which in my opinion becomes that Frank states; stuff regarding Focus 34/35 "
...all sounds more than a little far-fetched..."
---
Now, if Monroe lets his highly educated and trained personal measure brain wave pattern on say, 20 persons (Explorers, or what they were called at the time) over a sequence of several years, and those 20 persons show the same brain wave pattern when they experience ETs collecting data over Earth changes and ETs explaining the background to the Gathering, that is, in my opinion a
scientific definition of Focus 34/35.
And secondly, Monroe/TMI composed Hemi-Sync sound that could produce the same brain wave pattern in completely different individuals, and make those individuals experience the same Focus Level, then, in my opinion, it is a further indication to me that the Focus Level definition is based on a
scientific ground.
Science.
Definition.
Repeatability.
And reproduced on completely different individuals.
You can't prove any focus level exists, or that there is anything non-physical. All they've proven on a scientific level is that people's brainwave patterns can change, and that's been known before Monroe. Hemi-sync is good and can help, but it ain't all it's cracked up to be or everyone would be OBE'ing everyday.
And one point Monroe did make: It's one thing to believe this stuff, but it's so much more important to make it a known in your own life. That's one of the first things your hear when you do Gateway.
who of us gives a damn about 'scientific' anyway?
:evil: :wink:
Quote from: Volgerle on December 10, 2010, 17:26:31
who of us gives a damn about 'scientific' anyway?
Frank did.
He worked as a "
Science Consultant".
Monroe did.
He started TMI.
I do.
I critically review documents.
I worked in electronics for years, and flirted with other 'softer' fields, so it annoys me when I see scientific jargon incorrectly used to describe things which are only apparently related, or not at all.
So, me too.
Which is why I always challenge when people say 'this is proved' or similar statements.
And has nothing to do with my inability to absorb focus jargon- I am unable (possibly due to my dyscalculia) to assign subjective value to numbers such as focus levels. It's not that I don't like to, it's that I can't seem to make them stick in my brain.
Which is why I stick to descriptives when it comes to nonphysical environments.
But as regards to the theme, measuring brainwave patterns only proves that one is having an experience, not what it is.
It is interesting to note that some people project when in theta, and some project when in delta, and not everyone projects when in these levels (in regards to OBE, that is), so all Monroe did was establish a statistical model that shows what people report when their brainwaves are registering certain wavelengths. In other words, statistical documentation. Good for reference and comparison, but not proof of anything other than corresponding phenomena to brainstates.
As many things as these experiments illustrate, they don't prove anything in the scientific model.
-----
Assume that you measure the brain wave pattern of one person and that person suddenly says: "Now the darkness became grainy again."
Also assume that the brain wave pattern looks like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Eeg_theta.svg/720px-Eeg_theta.svg.png)
Assume further that an additional 19 persons all show the same brain wave pattern when they claim that "the darkness became grainy". If you measure these brain wave patterns scientifically, with proper personal, proper scientific equipment and then call this particular brain wave pattern for Focus 10, you have made a scientific definition based on scientific methods.
Definition.
You haven't proven anything. You have only made a scientific definition based on a sane scientific methodology ground.
----
Compare Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It isn't completely scientifically proven. In fact Einstein's Theory of Relativity is _opposed_ by Quantum Physics.
No proof.
Not proven.
It is still scientific.
kind of
Quote from: Pauli2 on December 11, 2010, 00:28:00
Frank did.
He worked as a "Science Consultant".
Monroe did.
He started TMI.
I do.
I critically review documents.
You misunderstood me. Whe I said that I was referring to those guys of the "scientific" "mainstream" who would deny the results of R. Monroe (or Frank or similar consciousness researchers) any scientific value, because according to their close-minded world view only "their" interpretation / model of "THE VERY" scientific method counts. That is what they restrict their "belief system" to.
That is what I meant by saying we should not care too much about "them" and "their" view anymore.
I am not totally "antiscience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience) but critical of "science" as it is understood by many of the "mainstream" nowadays (still, a paradigm change will come, I am sure).
There are other epistemological models that can be pursued and do not have to coincide with "official" science which is not up-to-date anyway. First of all, subjective experience (if systematized) must be "counted in" if we evaluate results, but it isn't for "mainstream" science who still only rely on "objectifiable" data, which is almost impossible when doing "parapsychological" research in the field of personal consciousness (with the exception of a few statistics-based and some of the body measurment methods, as for example done by Dean Radin in the laboratory, or some of the stuff that certain bio-photon resonance research groups nowadays do) - personal is always subjective.
I'm starting to think this is just me because no one ever seems to agree, but what the hell does science bring to the table more than any other method of describing these experiences?!
I am reading a book about scientific investigation of psi phenomena (Entangled Minds by Dean Radin, it's actually a pretty good book) and I just read a few sentences where the author mentions mystic explanations of psi and he says that they are really just metaphors based on the perspective of the time.......mhm. He goes on to express the belief that science is somehow different. Look, I get that science is supposedly the "gold standard" because of repeatability, control and falsifiability, but PLEASE tell me how scientific explanation is anything more than a metaphor for something else. Mathematics may be an exception in a sense, but from another perspective, math is still just a metaphor for something else. I mean think about it, the whole of human language is one big metaphor. Whether I'm talking about a sunflower or the equations that explain gravitation, I'm still metaphorically describing something. The word "sunflower" isn't a sunflower. A sunflower is a complex system of atoms that somehow generates this living thing we see as a flower, but even that description isn't a sunflower. But then a new question arises, is that sunflower actually a sunflower? Does the sunflower match what the metaphorical word "sunflower" means? Is the flower itself not infinitely more complex in ways we can't even understand? Can the word 'sunflower' actually grasp the beauty and elegance of the flower we see out in a field? To that same end, all of our language falls short of the actual experience. The way we describe things is just a metaphor for something indefinable that we experience in every moment of every day and science is no different or better. Science is just a way that we create common metaphors (they aren't really common though because everyone has a unique perception) for trying to explain reality. Does that make explanations that come out of science any better than the mystical traditions of ages past? Certainly not.
I actually have a lot more to say on this subject, but I don't have the time to keep writing and thinking right now, I'll have to add more later. So until then, stew over this a bit, I'm sure it will annoy someone.
Quote from: Pauli2 on December 11, 2010, 11:57:24
Assume that you measure the brain wave pattern of one person and that person suddenly says: "Now the darkness became grainy again."
Also assume that the brain wave pattern looks like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Eeg_theta.svg/720px-Eeg_theta.svg.png)
Assume further that an additional 19 persons all show the same brain wave pattern when they claim that "the darkness became grainy". If you measure these brain wave patterns scientifically, with proper personal, proper scientific equipment and then call this particular brain wave pattern for Focus 10, you have made a scientific definition based on scientific methods.
Definition.
You haven't proven anything. You have only made a scientific definition based on a sane scientific methodology ground.
----
Compare Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It isn't completely scientifically proven. In fact Einstein's Theory of Relativity is _opposed_ by Quantum Physics.
No proof.
Not proven.
It is still scientific.
kind of
Oh, I agree with you. What annoys me is that some people will say 'it's proven' with this data, and others will say 'prove it', and so it goes on and on.
Quote from: personalreality on December 11, 2010, 12:27:46
I'm starting to think this is just me because no one ever seems to agree, but what the hell does science bring to the table more than any other method of describing these experiences?!
I am reading a book about scientific investigation of psi phenomena (Entangled Minds by Dean Radin, it's actually a pretty good book) and I just read a few sentences where the author mentions mystic explanations of psi and he says that they are really just metaphors based on the perspective of the time.......mhm. He goes on to express the belief that science is somehow different. Look, I get that science is supposedly the "gold standard" because of repeatability, control and falsifiability, but PLEASE tell me how scientific explanation is anything more than a metaphor for something else. Mathematics may be an exception in a sense, but from another perspective, math is still just a metaphor for something else. I mean think about it, the whole of human language is one big metaphor. Whether I'm talking about a sunflower or the equations that explain gravitation, I'm still metaphorically describing something. The word "sunflower" isn't a sunflower. A sunflower is a complex system of atoms that somehow generates this living thing we see as a flower, but even that description isn't a sunflower. But then a new question arises, is that sunflower actually a sunflower? Does the sunflower match what the metaphorical word "sunflower" means? Is the flower itself not infinitely more complex in ways we can't even understand? Can the word 'sunflower' actually grasp the beauty and elegance of the flower we see out in a field? To that same end, all of our language falls short of the actual experience. The way we describe things is just a metaphor for something indefinable that we experience in every moment of every day and science is no different or better. Science is just a way that we create common metaphors (they aren't really common though because everyone has a unique perception) for trying to explain reality. Does that make explanations that come out of science any better than the mystical traditions of ages past? Certainly not.
I actually have a lot more to say on this subject, but I don't have the time to keep writing and thinking right now, I'll have to add more later. So until then, stew over this a bit, I'm sure it will annoy someone.
Sorry, I also agree with you.
Quote from: Taoistguy on December 10, 2010, 08:52:00
I've been thinking about what Kepple says about Focus 4. If this is all truem then the Focuses can't end at 4. There has to be something further/beyond. The conscioussnesses there didn't seem to know much more? Maybe they are like us back on Earth? Maybe there were some there who did know but were keeping silent.? Maybe there is at least another Focus where Focus 4 is fully understiid. Or maybr each following Focus is similar in the sense of the inhabitants generally don't know about the next one?
Focus 4 beigns can create universes...... though I do think there is something "beyond" Focus 4 I think that Focus 4 is indeed the full pinnacle of our self consiousness. I mean they can create freaking universes I cant see something beyond this in self terms.