Paranormal experiences vs. targeted individual psyops

[Sounder]

exojuridik wrote...

My experiences in academia, law school and the professional world do confirm this insight. There is an unspoken vetting process in any competitive environment that favors individuals who cultivate a unreflective, OCD personality. These people tend to be crazy in an (self)abusive, win-at-all-costs kinda of way. Ideas, emotions or thoughts are considered rational or acceptable insofar as they help you win. After many years of competing in these arenas and having to deal with these "winners," I have come to the conclusion that authentic introspection and ratiocination are antithetical to the professional world. If something can't be gamed or controlled it is by definition a liability.

what 23 wrote and this bit from exojuridik ought to tied together. I will try later; but what really drives inner dialogue?

[American Dream]

psynapz wrote:

And I wondered, listening to this podcast, how any of us could know whether they're being clairaudiently communicated with by extradimensional or other benevolent discarnate entities, or whether it's some buzzcut bastard with a microphone following orders to psychotronically convince 0.001% of the population to go out in turn and make loud noise to all who will listen about new agey topics which convince the most conscious demographics to calm down and keep from rising up against the machine.

I agree that these possibilities should be considered.

However, I would add a third possibility: The "New Age healer" on the podcast may just be flat-out lying in order to do some promotion for her business...

[Pele'sDaughter]

I will try later; but what really drives inner dialogue?

imho and experience, this is caused by the conflict between the authentic self and the programmed self (domestication programming). Domestication programming instills a big book of "law" in the mind and everything we think, do, and say is filtered through this big book of law. The bbol is presided over by a "judge" which either approves or condemns based on the bbol, and this judge is harder on us than it is on any one else. This is why people beat themselves up emotionally. I did, too, but that changed when I became aware through the proper knowledge provided by don Miguel Ruiz in The Voice of Knowledge. Once I understood how this works I could resist this bbol and its judge, and that horrible circular neverending dialogue ceased. The voice I hear now is my own coming from my innate integrity through heart-based intuitive thinking. Ruiz book is very worthwhile in many ways.

[exojuridik]

exojuridik wrote...

My experiences in academia, law school and the professional world do confirm this insight. There is an unspoken vetting process in any competitive environment that favors individuals who cultivate a unreflective, OCD personality. These people tend to be crazy in an (self)abusive, win-at-all-costs kinda of way. Ideas, emotions or thoughts are considered rational or acceptable insofar as they help you win. After many years of competing in these arenas and having to deal with these "winners," I have come to the conclusion that authentic introspection and ratiocination are antithetical to the professional world. If something can't be gamed or controlled it is by definition a liability.

what 23 wrote and this bit from exojuridik ought to tied together. I will try later; but what really drives inner dialogue?

All I know is that my house rule is that any non-localized entities need to "speak to the subconscious" - if its really important I'll get the message through a glint of insight. Having tried it the other way, I now only tolerate my own voice as my inner dialoguer. As to what drives this dialogue? - that's a very good question. Whatever is involved, I suspect my-voice-in-my-head is some kind of "finished" synthetic product that has been run through a series of psychic filtering mechanisms. Perhaps, dissociation and psychosis involves a breakdown of this process.

[vigilant]

for some reason, this seems to me like it could tie into "ionizing radiation"


November 26, 2009

People Hear with Their Skin, As Well As Their Ears
A new study shows that the skin could help us hear by 'feeling' sounds




The act of hearing is a group effort for the human body's organs, involving the ears, the eyes and also, according to the results of a new study, the skin.

In 1976 scientists discovered the importance of the eyes to our sense of hearing by demonstrating that the eyes could fool the ears in a peculiar phenomenon named the McGurk effect. When participants watched a video in which a person was saying "ga" but the audio was playing "ba," people thought they heard a completely different sound—"da." Now, by mixing audio with the tactile sense of airflow, researchers have found that our perception of certain sounds relies, in part, on being able to feel these sounds. The study was published November 26 in Nature.

Normally when we say words with the letters "p," "t" and "k," we produce a puff of air. This puff helps the listener distinguish words with these letters from those with the similar sounding "b," "d" and "g," respectively, even though the puff is so subtle that most of us do not even notice feeling it. "Unless you're a microphone manufacturer or a radio jockey or a phonetician, this isn't something that you're aware of," says Bryan Gick, an associate professor of linguistics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and lead author of the study. Donald Derrick, a graduate student in the University's Department of Linguistics, is the other author on the study.

Gick and Derrick set out to determine if these puffs of air help us to perceive "p" and "t" sounds. The pair had 66 participants listen to sessions of recorded sounds through headphones. In one session, the participants heard a combination of "pa" and "ba," and, in the other, "ta" and "da."

The researchers also sent light bursts of air from thin tubes placed over participants' skin, over either their hand, neck or in their ear. The participants were blindfolded so they did not know where the tube was placed. In some cases, puffs were released with the appropriate sounds, "pa" and "ta," and in other cases, they coincided inappropriately with "ba" and "da." As Gick notes, the puffs were about half as forceful as what we would feel in a normal conversation, and most participants were not even aware of them over the course of the experiment.

The researchers found that if there was no air puff, participants misheard "pa" for "ba" and "ta" for "da" 30 to 40 percent of the time. The accuracy improved 10 to 20 percent when an air puff over the hand or neck accompanied "pa" and "ta." No improvement occurred, however, if an air puff was sent through the tube in the ear, suggesting that the participants were not simply hearing the airflow.

The opposite effect was observed when the participants received an air puff with the inappropriate sounds— "ba" and "da." While subjects correctly identified these sounds in about 80 percent of cases when played without the release of air, the accuracy decreased by about 10 percent if the sounds were accompanied by puffs of air.

"Largely, in English, the difference between 'pa' and 'ba' is this puff of air," Gick says.

The ability of the skin to contribute to hearing could be due to the fact that the largest organ in the body is covered in mechanoreceptors. Gick says that he has even found that air puffs sent to the ankle can help the listener comprehend those "p," "t" and "k" sounds. These receptors in skin cells, which are similar to the ones in the ears, respond to the pressure created by airflow.

In the real world, the cues available to a listener vary. Standing a foot or closer to someone speaking normally should produce tactile puffs, Gick says. However, if the conversation were taking place on a windy street, this sensory input would be destroyed. Although people can hear sounds in the absence of airflow, these sensory cues could make it easier to distinguish between two words, such as "tall" and "doll," especially if there is a lot of ambient noise.

The feel of sounds could be exploited in devices for groups such as the hearing impaired. Gick is in the early stages of exploring how to incorporate into hearing aids airflow-detecting sensors that would produce a synthetic puff to the side of the neck. Because the skin mechanoreceptors among the hearing impaired typically function normally, Gick says, this additional tactile stimulus could help the person wearing the device perceive sounds. A similar concept could aid pilots in their noisy work environments.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... perception

[Sounder]

AD wrote…

However, I would add a third possibility: The "New Age healer" on the podcast may just be flat-out lying in order to do some promotion for her business...

This sounds a bit disingenuous because it is more likely your first choice. Mine too, mind you, but it is not all that interesting, is it?

I am going to start out trying to stick to the op title, and then maybe get to exo style thoughts.

Paranormal experiences vs. targeted individual psyops

I have an early and long association with what some may call ‘paranormal’ experiences. The paranormal exists as those activities that are outside of our normal reality testing devices. While we look at the paranormal through the normal, we can expect that many things will not add up.

Ok, I’m a little reticent here so this may be a bit sketchy. Actually, never mind the story; I’ll simply leave a conclusion or two. Many ‘targeted’ individuals are misinterpreting paranormal events as having mundane origins. It may also be the case however, that some agency folk try to mimic and imitate paranormal affects so as to confuse sensitive folk. The ‘targeting’ may then be either/or both a revealing of unconscious elements of reality and attempts at controlling the creation of new reality boxes.

I’m blogged out, maybe another time.