Sleep Paralysis and Trance

[Xanth]

There's no need to insult here.

We can state our beliefs/opinions.
As you said Capt, trying to "prove" something using your opinion or belief of it is meaningless.

But at the same time, it's important to respect that belief.

My personal belief is that Paralysis isn't required for Phasing or Projecting, as I believe that one can project while fully awake and aware of this reality.
I have no proof for this beyond my beliefs. 

~Ryan

[Psilibus]

Talk of proof and evidence. How exactly do you provide proof or evidence of something that is almost entirely subjective? Just asking. I mean you might be able to pull some validation trick - "Yeah dude, yesterday I projected to your house to see if you could see me but you were too busy masturbating to anime porn on your computer. So, yeah, I guess you didn't notice me but then you didn't notice your neighbor across the street watching you with her binoculars either." Your friend might not believe you unless it were fact but even then might not admit it to be true. The neighbor would be the one to give you the validation but she might not admit to anything either. You might not want, at that point, to admit anything yourself.
Personally, I think the discussion of AP alone is a sticky wicket. Unless the other person has similar experience or understanding you stand the risk of appearing VERY strange. I appear very strange anyways so it does not matter so much to me. It is interesting to read here of some people getting very upset and sarcastic. How does that benefit anyone. It benefits me only because I enjoy the flame. I am still a troll I guess.
Captain, that wasn't you on the computer any more than I was the neighbor with the binoculars.

I better find a new thread. I wouldn't want anyone to rip ME a new one. I like my old one just fine.

[zareste]

the issue of entirely subjective things never came up. We're talking about projection in this thread

[Psilibus]

the issue of entirely subjective things never came up. We're talking about projection in this thread

No kidding? I though that was what I was talking about. "Evidence based facts". How is "projection" anything BUT subjective. Unless we meet each other in the astral what do we have? A discussion.

This thread started with discussion of brain waves didn't it? I still want to know what brain waves and projection have to do with anything. I'm serious. I'm not doubting here. Just trying to learn more.

Thank you Xanth. Im getting tired of people saying Im wrong for giving my opinion, yet backing up their claims with nothing but their opinion? I guess some people dont understand logical argumentation.

THAT type of discussion is one to avoid, hurt feelings. Don't deny it! Love your feelings! Its ok to cry some times but not ok to cry ALL the time.
I really want someone to agree to disagree. Not disagree to agree. I apologize but I have suddenly felt the need to return to illogical argumentation. "Stirring the ethers" as it were.

[Selea]

this is very self limiting, I guess we should all give up projecting because we'll never be as good as someone who has a gift. /end Astralpulse forum, I'll let adrian know we have to shut it down now, no one post anymore unless you have a gift because you're of a lower origin to Selea. This is the stupidest idea I've ever seen you communicate. This forum is not here so you can put ideas in people's heads that they won't amount to anything.

Or you have a problem of comprehension or maybe I stated something wrong, whatever it is. I never stated one needs a "gift" to have some experiences, I only stated that people that can do these sort of things automatically do it in another way, and that's actually also in a perfectly "awake" status. What's so wrong about that?

[Selea]

You know I was gonna rip ya a new one Selea (verbally), but the fact that you think you have proved anything by stating your opinions is laughable, and (trying not to be offensive) demonstrates a pretty feeble and closed minded attitude. I pity you, and nothing more needs to be said, you clearly do not understand simple logical argumentation. All you have stated is your opinion, if you honestly cant tell the difference between that and actual evidence based facts, then as I said, I need not say anything else to you, i can already tell its gonna be like arguing with a fundamental christian or perhaps a brick wall.

Omg, are you really trying to provoke me in a internet flame war? Try to comprehend what I write for god's sake instead of trying to insult me without either trying to grasp anything.

The evidence is in people that can do what you say. Do you understand it? A little child can do the same. It is this not evidence for you? If it isn't then TRY to find it for yourself. I didn't tell you to believe me, only to try to have a more open mind on what can or cannot work, only this.

If you don't believe it's possible to "project" in an awake status then fine, however I brought you some examples that you neither replied to. You can believe them maybe not "factual" truth, but how can I prove in that way to you in an internet forum? Be serious please, what you ask is beyond intelligence, and what's worse you have the presumption of trying to teach me what it means.

I told you that are history cases that demonstrated that what you say is wrong. Maybe you don't believe them, fine. I told you that there are many cases where people find themselves with "remote viewing" capabilities while perfectly awake. Don't believe them the same, fine too. However remember then that if you want more "proof" than this you are in the wrong place to ask. Either understand this or try to reply using the same method of discussion, a thing you naturally haven't do in the smallest way since you didn't reply to anything at all of what I said but just discarded it fully as if you are "superior" and not interested in "empyrical" evidence, a thing that it's obvsiously the only thing you can have here, and that, btw, it's the only thing YOU can offer, with the difference that I'm open to your discussion on the matter (of whatever form it may be) while you aren't, it seems, or pretend something that it's beyond the scope of the same.

Either try to understand where we are or try to comprehend that not everyone telling that you are wrong is insulting your ego.

[Selea]

Talk of proof and evidence. How exactly do you provide proof or evidence of something that is almost entirely subjective? Just asking.

As I said this argument is not "totally" subjective as you think it. There are also "objective" truths to talk about. Problem is that it is impossible to ascertain them in a forum, but this I thought was a given fact. The only thing you can do here as "proof" are examples, nothing more.

However if you think a forum as a background to "teach" formally experiences or demonstrating facts I think one should be a bit silly. I'm using the "mean" in the best way I can. However, I repeat, there are also objective proofs. One of them in this case is watching a little child doing what we call "projection". Maybe many self-impositions and pretentions on what and what cannot be will be simply removed just by this little experiment. It's not that difficult, isn't it?

[Psilibus]

As I said this argument is not "totally" subjective as you think it. There are also "objective" truths to talk about. Problem is that it is impossible to ascertain them in a forum, but this I thought was a given fact. The only thing you can do here as "proof" are examples, nothing more.

However if you think a forum as a background to "teach" formally experiences or demonstrating facts I think one should be a bit silly. I'm using the "mean" in the best way I can. However, I repeat, there are also objective proofs. One of them in this case is watching a little child doing what we call "projection". Maybe many self-impositions and pretentions on what and what cannot be will be simply removed just by this little experiment. It's not that difficult, isn't it?

My "karma" keeps dropping.

I still am wondering what type of objective "proof" can be managed. I'm not doubting it could be so, I just haven't heard the answer to my question. "watching a little child doing what we call "projection"" - I'm sorry but - WTF? Unless you can crawl into the mind of the child you have no freakin way of knowing what is going on in their little head. Sorry, but you don't.

I'm watching my mama mastiff, Mathilda, dream right now. She's twitchin and whinin and apparently havin a ball. Is she projecting? In the astral doggy realm? Who knows, but I'll tell you that my observation is that she is responding to some internal stimuli. That's the best objective information I can confirm. She is definitely not "paralyzed", she moving all over the floor. LOL.

Oh well, I don't think these forums are for proofs unless you're going to the island or figuring out what picture I have hanging on my wall. These forums help me because of the "discussion". The stories. The weird experiences that ring true because I know what it feels like or have experienced something similar.

I'm going to go lay down and fly for awhile. It will be a purely objective experience I can assure you.

Thanks for keeping this thread moving.

[sola~]

Or you have a problem of comprehension or maybe I stated something wrong, whatever it is. I never stated one needs a "gift" to have some experiences, I only stated that people that can do these sort of things automatically do it in another way, and that's actually also in a perfectly "awake" status. What's so wrong about that?

There are people that have the "gift" of being able to tranfer the consciousness in other "forms". These people do things differently from people that learned how to do it. The difference in this case is that they can do it either while in an "awake" status.

Let me get this through your head, you're saying that anyone who doesn't have a gift will be LIMITED in what they are able to do compared to someone who has a gift. You're saying no matter how hard the person without a gift tries, they will never be able to be as good as the person who has a gift. You're putting those who don't have a gift as lowbie projectors that can experience but never as well as those who have a gift. You're basically making it seem like if they don't have a gift they won't be able to experience well enough, to the greatest that they can possible, while those who have a gift can do so easily. You're basically saying if they don't have a gift they will always be second rate. So I wonder, do you have a gift? and if you don't, maybe you should realize its because you haven't practiced enough.

[Xanth]

Guys...

If you can't be civil then I'm going to request that this thread be locked.

Please keep it clean and stop the insults.

Thanks,

~Ryan

[sola~]

#Astralpulse chat is good~ breathe some life into it

[Psilibus]

Was I being insulting?

I thought I was encouraging!

[Capt. Picard]

Selea... omg... first you call my beliefs flat out wrong then state your equally unfounded beliefs as fact. I talked about fact because you were dismissing my opinion in favour of your own, which is down right insulting when we are discussing unprovable things. Now you start talking all this objectivity stuff in AP, which is a subjective experience... Sorry, but nothing you have said changes my opinion of you, you are continuing to claim your opinions are objective facts... You think I dont get what your saying, but really you lack the understanding of the things you are talking about, so I don't wish to discuss them further. End of story. As for Psilibus, I have no problem with anything you said, sorry if it seemed like I was directing my messages at you.

[Selea]

I still am wondering what type of objective "proof" can be managed. I'm not doubting it could be so, I just haven't heard the answer to my question. "watching a little child doing what we call "projection"" - I'm sorry but - WTF? Unless you can crawl into the mind of the child you have no freakin way of knowing what is going on in their little head. Sorry, but you don't.

You are talking of two different things as if they are the same. I was not talking about the "personal" experience a child can have, but HOW THE CHILD APPROACH THE SAME. This you can see with a little experiment. A little child approach the "method" in a total different way as we adults are accustomed to. First the child doesn't need many self-impositions on what works and what not. It is as if he already knows without a doubt that what you are talking about CAN be done. This changes completely the way the experience is approached. One of the differences is, in fact, that a little child needs at most a "daydream" focus of mind to project.

Again, don't believe it? Fine. Still this is an OBJECTVIE truth that anyone can ascertain for themselves. I'm not talking about what the child SEES OR DOES. I'm talking about how the child APPROACH the experience. Two different things, you see.

I'm watching my mama mastiff, Mathilda, dream right now. She's twitchin and whinin and apparently havin a ball. Is she projecting? In the astral doggy realm? Who knows, but I'll tell you that my observation is that she is responding to some internal stimuli. That's the best objective information I can confirm. She is definitely not "paralyzed", she moving all over the floor. LOL.

What the hell does this have with what I said is beyond me, really.

[Selea]

Let me get this through your head, you're saying that anyone who doesn't have a gift will be LIMITED in what they are able to do compared to someone who has a gift. You're saying no matter how hard the person without a gift tries, they will never be able to be as good as the person who has a gift. You're putting those who don't have a gift as lowbie projectors that can experience but never as well as those who have a gift. You're basically making it seem like if they don't have a gift they won't be able to experience well enough, to the greatest that they can possible, while those who have a gift can do so easily. You're basically saying if they don't have a gift they will always be second rate. So I wonder, do you have a gift? and if you don't, maybe you should realize its because you haven't practiced enough.

Listen, or you try to comprehend what one wrote or please just stop replying to me, because either you are dumb or simply have a preconcepted way or reading what I write. Either way I don't have the time for these idiocies.

I told you only that people that know  how to transfer consciousness in a "form" without training (i.e. with a sort of "gift") approach the experience in another way. They don't have many of the self-impositions created by those that learn to do the same, for various motives (an intelligent people can understand what these differences are without me telling him/her).

I never said that "non-gifted" people can never reach the same experiences, only that their INITIAL approach is different. However I also said that this different APPROACH to the experience is not easy to overcome because the imposed structures are difficult to overcome. Does this mean that only "gifted" people can do the same? Never said that. I said only that INITIALLY they do things in a different way, i.e. the METHOD is different.

And btw, as I said in another thread (that you have read) while people that can transfer the consciousness without training have maybe a better time when it comes to overcome imposed obstacles on how to approach the experience they have many different obstacles to overcome and many times they are much more difficult to surpass than a simple approach to the experience. So are "gifted" people really gifted? No. Nature is always in equilibrum.

Do you understand now or I have to make a painting?

[Selea]

Selea... omg... first you call my beliefs flat out wrong then state your equally unfounded beliefs as fact.

My "beliefs" were demonstrated (to the best of my abilities here, naturally) with examples and motives why it is not as you said. Naturally you didn't (and haven't till now) replied to a single thing. You are doing as an ostrich, you just put your head in the sand just to not hear and believe just what you want. However remember that it's difficult to grow this way, either in your "methods" of approaching an experience.

I talked about fact because you were dismissing my opinion in favour of your own, which is down right insulting when we are discussing unprovable things.

Again, unprovable in a forum, but this you know much too well, isn't it? You are just going round and round with this silly argumentation and I believe you are intelligent enough to understand perfectly what you are doing. However I'm too, sorry for you.

Now you start talking all this objectivity stuff in AP, which is a subjective experience... Sorry, but nothing you have said changes my opinion of you, you are continuing to claim your opinions are objective facts...

Never wanted to change your ideas on the matter. Only tried to make you have a more open mind. As for the objective-subjective matter refer to my previous message to Psilibus. You are talking of different things as if they are the same, same as him.

[Psilibus]

You are talking of two different things as if they are the same. I was not talking about the "personal" experience a child can have, but HOW THE CHILD APPROACH THE SAME. This you can see with a little experiment. A little child approach the "method" in a total different way as we adults are accustomed to. First the child doesn't need many self-impositions on what works and what not. It is as if he already knows without a doubt that what you are talking about CAN be done. This changes completely the way the experience is approached. One of the differences is, in fact, that a little child needs at most a "daydream" focus of mind to project.

Again, don't believe it? Fine. Still this is an OBJECTVIE truth that anyone can ascertain for themselves. I'm not talking about what the child SEES OR DOES. I'm talking about how the child APPROACH the experience. Two different things, you see.

What the hell does this have with what I said is beyond me, really.

Thought you might see what I posted awhile back. There might be common ground in a response from you if you give it some thought. I dunno if the link works. Read it and comment please.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_projection_experiences/kids_say_the_darndest_things-t31673.0.html;msg258410#msg258410

And the comment on my dog was in regards to this dilemma -
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

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

ob·jective·ly adv.
ob·jective·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

-----VERSUS-----

sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

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

sub·jective·ly adv.
sub·jective·ness, subjec·tivi·ty (sbjk-tv-t) n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Philosophical debates are one thing but blatant definitions are another. I still am interested in your objective proof. Like I said, I'm not denying it exists, I just have not read anything which satisfies my criteria for objectivity.

We'll get there I'm sure.

[Stookie]

Does anybody have anything left to say about sleep paralysis related to trance?

[personalreality]

nope. lock it.

[CFTraveler]

Ditto on both counts.  In fact, I'm surprised to be posting.

[Stookie]

Thaaaank You!