Originally Posted by Taramarie

I needed to sit here a good while and try figure out what you are on about. Do you mean look at what we sense and look within ourselves for the answer??

It means look at your own awareness. Be aware that you are aware. Are you conscious, nor not?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

lol but this is probably NOT "one of them." If it is, then science will give you the understanding. If it isn't, then you'll need other kinds of knowledge to understand it. But you can always bring a scientific approach to it, like Dr. Fontana did as he explained in the video. Science can eliminate incorrect explanations such as fraud or arbitrary religious belief.

A scientific attitude means you know things yourself, or through observations that have been verified, rather than through mere authority, dogma or tradition. Nothing wrong with that. But if you say that you must understand the paranormal through science alone, or a materialist philosophy, then that itself is a dogma.

from google:

What is the meaning of the word Poltergeist?
In folklore and parapsychology, a poltergeist (German for "noisy ghost") is a type of ghost or other supernatural being supposedly responsible for physical disturbances such as loud noises and objects moved around or destroyed.

Another suggested explanation for poltergeist activity is that you yourself are causing it. So it is still spiritual, but YOU are the spirit that is psychically causing it through telekinesis. I wouldn't put that past a Scorpio

http://www.psychicscience.org/polt1.aspx

Oh that is creepy. Yes, that is what is here and what i have experienced. So, it is not just a ghost. It is a poltergeist. Do they attack? Does telekinesis power cause bulbs to explode?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It means look at your own awareness. Be aware that you are aware. Are you conscious, nor not?

When i was too aware, that was when i was in contact with them so i distract myself, Eric.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, you asked about the auras that you see. Auras are generated, so to speak, by the chakras, or you can say it is centered in the chakras.



Science may be able to verify what you are experiencing, but there are too few scientists around like Dr. Fontana or Dr. Sheldrake or other parapsychologists who are willing and able to do some kind of test for this. As you said, most people will not believe you. It takes someone who is open minded about the phenomenon.

I did not mean "using your own words" in my post above. You don't understand too well the point of view I am describing. I guess that is common among civics; I don't know. My civic parents and some of their older friends could not understand it either, although some younger borderline civic/artist-cusp people understood it well (people born after 1920).

To understand these things, you need to look at yourself; not think of yourself as an object that others see. Look at your consciousness, not your body. That's why you can't understand my point about "if you die you have never lived." It takes a switch in point of view. It is easy to switch your point of view, but our materialist culture does not allow or facilitate this. Some people here will not do this just because it is me that suggests doing it.



People emit energy; that is the aura, and we also are energetic beings. We do things; we act. What you are seeing as balls of energy are the actions created by spirits, most likely from your description. If it is just some strange physical energy, then it would have a physical explanation, and some scientist could tell you what's causing it.

I haven't seen these kinds of poltergeist events because I have never lived in a place that's haunted like that. I think it's fairly rare, or else more people would be interested in having it studied, and more people would believe your observations. If you have asked a scientist, and they can't explain it, I advise studying parapsychology or spiritual philosophy and that might give you the answers you need.

What i highlighted, yes that makes total sense. Ok,thank you that may help me understand it more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It means look at your own awareness. Be aware that you are aware. Are you conscious, nor not?

I just did a search on what telekinetics are capable of and blowing bulbs and having a connection with energy is a part of what they can do and flipping switches. I need a drink now.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

When i was too aware, that was when i was in contact with them so i distract myself, Eric.

Hmmmmmm. That IS spiritual. I would suggest finding a counselor who is an expert on handling psychic troubles, tara. If you have to escape from yourself to avoid psychic phenomena, I would suggest you need more self-awareness not less. But if that is an area of fear for you, get some help and guidance when you go within. It's up to you whether that's a priority for you. But I would say, (just my thought now) that if you can't be aware of yourself, that would be a serious disability that closes off much of life from you, and disables your abilities for self-control and self-understanding. "I need a drink now." I rest my case

The idea that your poltergeists are self-generated, may be one to seriously consider.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hmmmmmm. That IS spiritual. I would suggest finding a counselor who is an expert on handling psychic troubles, tara. If you have to escape from yourself to avoid psychic phenomena, I would suggest you need more self-awareness not less. But if that is an area of fear for you, get some help and guidance when you go within. It's up to you whether that's a priority for you. But I would say, (just my thought now) that if you can't be aware of yourself, that would be a serious disability that closes off much of life from you, and disables your abilities for self-control and self-understanding. "I need a drink now." I rest my case

The idea that your poltergeists are self-generated, may be one to seriously consider.

One of them may be but i think the lady is real. She is documented on the lease and when she passed on her brother took over the place. When i was aware, and worse still angry computers would go haywire when id go near them and i waved my hand in front of a bulb in anger and the thing exploded. Once i suppressed it it has slowed down other than the lights. Unless you think i could control that?

When i was a wiccan i had more control but it was certainly more active. Now it is in bursts of anger that is appears in or simple things like i cannot touch certain fabrics or especially anything metallic. I have to roll my sleeve up so i can touch them. I get shocked very easily and off people easily too. I wonder if everyone has this problem. My mother can pick things up easily without getting electrical shocks.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

When i was a wiccan i had more control but it was certainly more active. Now it is in bursts of anger that is appears in or simple things like i cannot touch certain fabrics or especially anything metallic. I have to roll my sleeve up so i can touch them. I get shocked very easily and off people easily too. I wonder if everyone has this problem. My mother can pick things up easily without getting electrical shocks.

I sounds to me that your body has higher than normal electrical resistance. It might be diet related or it may just be you. As far as diet, you may drink too little water-base liquids or too much alcohol. It may be too little salt. Of course, those are only possibilities. I have the same problem, and it's just me. I know; I've measured myself.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I sounds to me that your body has higher than normal electrical resistance. It might be diet related or it may just be you. As far as diet, you may drink too little water-base liquids or too much alcohol. It may be too little salt. Of course, those are only possibilities. I have the same problem, and it's just me. I know; I've measured myself.

most likely that

Originally Posted by Kinser79

PBR that is just plain snobbery. Music is either objectively good, or objectively terrible.

No such thing as personal taste? What you think is good is objectively so? Talk about snobbery.

Pot meet the kettle.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No such thing as personal taste? What you think is good is objectively so? Talk about snobbery.

Pot meet the kettle.

Not quite Mike. There are objective standards for what is good, and what is not good. There has to be otherwise there are no standards. But perhaps that is what you want. Seems to to be the Boomer script to take what standards are left after the Mega-Awakening (Great Power Saeculum) and to destroy them paving the way for the Mega-Crisis.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not quite Mike. There are objective standards for what is good, and what is not good. There has to be otherwise there are no standards. But perhaps that is what you want. Seems to to be the Boomer script to take what standards are left after the Mega-Awakening (Great Power Saeculum) and to destroy them paving the way for the Mega-Crisis.

And those standards are exactly the same as you personally like, how convenient.

Originally Posted by Odin

And those standards are exactly the same as you personally like, how convenient.

Well, why not? The Boomers on here call all 3T music "garbage," like it is some sort of universal truth. Why shouldn't we all just live in our own personal, narcissistic bubbles and not try to understand the experiences of others.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Well, why not? The Boomers on here call all 3T music "garbage," like it is some sort of universal truth. Why shouldn't we all just live in our own personal, narcissistic bubbles and not try to understand the experiences of others.

hehehe exactly. I try to explain it all comes down to preference but no one listens.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... There are objective standards for what is good, and what is not good. There has to be otherwise there are no standards. ...

That is a fascinating statement!!

I am truly curious. Please list five or six "objective standards" that clearly separate good music from bad music.

Then, just for kicks, let us apply those standards to some specific examples, and these are just some I've chosen:

1. Tracy Chapman's "Give Me One Reason."
2. Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs "Foggy Mountain Breakdown."
3. George Jones "He Stopped Loving Her Today."
4. Aretha Franklin "Respect."

Back on topic:

The new cosmology – a word that here signals both the study of the universe and an overarching religious worldview – defines human beings as the part of the universe that has become conscious of itself. We are the only creatures to have evolved an awareness of our place in the universe. Humans’ dawning cosmological awareness, it is believed, will connect us emotionally to cosmic processes, allowing us to feel more at home in the universe. Sensing our place in cosmic patterns and processes will inspire sustainable practices on Earth.

https://theconversation.com/the-prob...nto-myth-48225

Originally Posted by TnT

That is a fascinating statement!!

I am truly curious. Please list five or six "objective standards" that clearly separate good music from bad music.

Then, just for kicks, let us apply those standards to some specific examples, and these are just some I've chosen:

1. Tracy Chapman's "Give Me One Reason."
2. Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs "Foggy Mountain Breakdown."
3. George Jones "He Stopped Loving Her Today."
4. Aretha Franklin "Respect."

Good music must have the following to be objectively good:

1. A melody
2. A harmony that does not clash with said melody
3. A beat (a dance-able beat if it is claimed to be dance music)
4. A clear rhythm.

All four of the songs you listed have those four qualities. Though only one of them is to my taste. I'll let you ponder which one.

Originally Posted by Odin

And those standards are exactly the same as you personally like, how convenient.

With regard to music, see my post below. With regard to visual arts see my other posts on this subject. As for convenience, it is more convenient to have NO standards than it is to have standards.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Well, why not? The Boomers on here call all 3T music "garbage," like it is some sort of universal truth. Why shouldn't we all just live in our own personal, narcissistic bubbles and not try to understand the experiences of others.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

hehehe exactly. I try to explain it all comes down to preference but no one listens.

Neither of you are getting my point. Perhaps I should try flowery language since being blunt isn't working.

Mockingbirdstl: When I say that there are objective standards to good art and good music, what I mean quite simply is that both have certain qualities that can be detected through objective observation of the piece. As such should something called art or music not have one of those qualities it cannot possibly be "good". One of those meanings is a clear expression of the self, that is of the artist who created it or composed it. Should it not have that (like say a Jackson Pollock painting) it cannot in fact be art.

That being said, if a piece does have a clear expression of the self, but is in fact objectively bad, it is still art.

Tara:

Personal preference has little to do with the objective standards that art and music must be subjected to, to determine whether or not it is in fact "good" or "bad". Some music is in fact "bad" and that is the point of it. A great number of punk rock songs would actually be ruined if someone tried to make them objectively "good".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Neither of you are getting my point. Perhaps I should try flowery language since being blunt isn't working.

Mockingbirdstl: When I say that there are objective standards to good art and good music, what I mean quite simply is that both have certain qualities that can be detected through objective observation of the piece. As such should something called art or music not have one of those qualities it cannot possibly be "good". One of those meanings is a clear expression of the self, that is of the artist who created it or composed it. Should it not have that (like say a Jackson Pollock painting) it cannot in fact be art.

That being said, if a piece does have a clear expression of the self, but is in fact objectively bad, it is still art.

Tara:

Personal preference has little to do with the objective standards that art and music must be subjected to, to determine whether or not it is in fact "good" or "bad". Some music is in fact "bad" and that is the point of it. A great number of punk rock songs would actually be ruined if someone tried to make them objectively "good".

Yes that is very true

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Good music must have the following to be objectively good:

1. A melody
2. A harmony that does not clash with said melody
3. A beat (a dance-able beat if it is claimed to be dance music)
4. A clear rhythm.

All four of the songs you listed have those four qualities. Though only one of them is to my taste. I'll let you ponder which one.

Is rap is automatically bad by your definition, as it lacks melody, being spoken?

What is the difference between a beat and rhythm? Isn't the former subsumed into the latter?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

When I say that there are objective standards to good art and good music, what I mean quite simply is that both have certain qualities that can be detected through objective observation of the piece. As such should something called art or music not have one of those qualities it cannot possibly be "good". One of those meanings is a clear expression of the self, that is of the artist who created it or composed it.

But this is a subjective opinion.

Having said this you do have a point, although I suspect you do not know what it is, and would disagree with me if I told you what it was.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Good music must have the following to be objectively good:

1. A melody
2. A harmony that does not clash with said melody
3. A beat (a dance-able beat if it is claimed to be dance music)
4. A clear rhythm.

All four of the songs you listed have those four qualities. Though only one of them is to my taste. I'll let you ponder which one.

I would suggest that a fair amount of Japanese and/or Chinese music would "sound" dis-harmonic to our American-accustomed ears. If that is true, then "harmony" becomes a matter of taste as well. And "melody" also could be up for grabs. And rhythm even.

From your response, I'm inclined to assume that "good" and "bad" by your system are objectively different from "taste?" We may be making progress here ... if good and bad are objectively different from taste, then we're getting it sliced and dices pretty thin!

Originally Posted by TnT

I would suggest that a fair amount of Japanese and/or Chinese music would "sound" dis-harmonic to our American-accustomed ears. If that is true, then "harmony" becomes a matter of taste as well. And "melody" also could be up for grabs. And rhythm even.

From your response, I'm inclined to assume that "good" and "bad" by your system are objectively different from "taste?" We may be making progress here ... if good and bad are objectively different from taste, then we're getting it sliced and dices pretty thin!

My argumentation is that taste (or lack thereof) cannot be accounted for. That being said, music can be objectively good, and still not be liked by an individual. For example most modern country is not to my taste, but it very well could be objectively speaking good.