Telepathy: An Infinite Potential of the Universal Being or A Delusion of the Ego-Mind

Hahaha I like how you guys got to telepathy between people who hate each other, good addressing both sides of the spectrum.
However, I have to disagree with Hannah, who says that it would be near impossible to connect your beings. Assuming there is a legit reason for the mutual hatred, wouldn't this negative energy radiate along, sort of contaminate, your essence? Hatred is in a sense a kind of "close-ness."

Hi, Vicky!

I absolutely do agree with what you responded to my question. It is very intriguing that you mentioned the forming of artificial relationships between people – these appear to be, as you said, simplistic attempts at building relationships, conversations, or any other form of interaction that allows room for communication. The burdensome problem that subtly prohibits these actions lies in, as always, the ego-mind. The ego-minds of individuals are quite friendly in the physical realm – which is, shall we say, on the surface of communication and interaction in our everyday lives – but refuse to cooperate in the nonlocal, more spiritual and profound domain. Like this, perhaps we will never be able to completely rid ourselves of our prejudices and manners of thinking and viewing – entirely because our ego-minds are, as Vicky stated, just too self-centered and narrow-minded to accept change and differences/shifts in perception.

I do not think we should classify the ego-mind as an entirely evil element of our bodies, though. It is true that the complications that are stirred up by the ego-mind are not often kind in nature, and they sometimes even discourage us from reaching/attaining our true individual potentials – but we can never fully rid ourselves of our ego-minds. No matter how many times we cleanse ourselves and connect solely with our beings, we cannot push our ego-minds away. In my opinion, it will remain with us till the end of our days. But that doesn’t mean, however, that we are unable to connect through a channel that is built solely by our beings. It does not become entirely necessary for our essences to connect and to embrace in harmony every time we communicate with one another. Communication does not always result in one of the communicators attaining the brilliant sensation of enlightenment. But when our essences do so happen to connect, that channel of light will gradually – or suddenly – become visible. Is this achieved through want, I wonder? If one wants, it can either mean that one’s essence wants, or that one’s ego-mind wants. The essence, or the inner being, is connected to the Universal Being and genuinely to everyone’s essence, so shouldn’t the essences connect instantly and intimately upon meeting and greeting? It is, as we have gathered, the ego-mind that dictates this last step to building a firm, close relationship. It disrupts us in our quest to find true meaning and beauty in forming spiritual relationships. This disturbance is then the ego-mind’s “want.”

Although we cannot command the ego-mind to vanish from our bodies and our lives, we can diminish its voice of action. It is through learning to detach from the ego-mind, the fiery pest of stiffness and regulation, that we are truly able to bring out the suppressed inner self (why is the ego-mind so forceful, anyway? Does the body not allow both the essence and ego-mind to be divided equally in the body? Or is the ego-mind just a cancerous portion of the body that spreads maliciously as we wind inwards more and more into our little heads?) and thereafter form true and meaningful relationships with one another.

I think that the ego mind takes a significant role in superficial relationships.

I agree that the ego mind brings out its role in relationships between people who are not able to freely let their beings and energies intermingle. I suddenly thought of what Emerson said, about how when a second person enters, hypocrisy begins. Perhaps he is referring to these “superficial” relationships, where we do not expose the “real” us – the essence of our beings – rather, we act out of the ego mind. When two people are close and are able to connect and communicate without direct expression of words, they may be seen as a single unit – as ONE – due to their interconnection and relation with ecah other. This relates back to the different levels of Being. On the physical domain, things appear as separate and posses individual identities, but as one transcends physical boundaries into the nonlocal domain of collective unconsiouss, everything becomes ONE because everything connects through essence.

If we have the capability of gradually disabling the ego-mind and its dominant nature – and the distress it brings about, too – why can our essences not connect or communicate through a channel that is built solely by the beings?

Relating to what I said earlier about the ego mind dominating bewteen two people who are are not able to connect through their Beings, I think it is the ego mind that is inhibiting their channel of intuition from forming. They do not feel comfortable to relax and to take a step out of their ego minds…allowing thoughts like “what do they think about me?” “do they hate me?” “are their reffering to me in their gossip?” to overwhlem them, when these thoughts are actually superficial thoughts that were created by the ego mind to create fear….which leads to doubt in ourselves.
This leads to the second question that angel asked. As we mature and experience more in life, occasionally people are no longer able to live with the Being truly in control because their ego minds will cause fear and doubt in oneself. Just as vicky mentioned earlier, as we are exposed to the world and encounter more of the unexplored corners of life, our ego minds completely lose itself. It goes into overdrive and when individuals are not able to raise awareness of the quiet Being and to take action by stepping out of the ego mind, this is when we block our channel of inuition – of spontaneity – to create and to expereicence essence with the Universal Being. We have the capability to control the ego mind, but we occasionally lose control of it due to the fear and doubt that it creates. We lose ourselves and the confidence that we had decreases. Perhaps when one does not feel the interconnection with all, it is because our ego minds are going into overdrive without our awareness there to realize it.

btw...thanks, fermin, for the comment! it gives me the motivation and more confidence to express my ideas

By the way...this discussion thread reminds me of Starcraft Protoss. As most of you know, its a Blizzard Company Game and one of it's playable races is the alien-looking Protoss.

Heres a brief history about them from a Starcraft Fan Site.

The protoss were discovered by the xel'naga on Aiur, a world the xel'naga had previously engineered. They were fascinated by their purity of form and their mental connection, believing that to be purity of essence. Pushing the evolution of the protoss, the xel'naga eventually descended to Aiur. The protoss, who revered the xel'naga as gods, learned much from them. However, these discoveries divided the protoss, causing their psychic links to disappear and wars to break out amongst them. The xel'naga left the planet as the protoss fell into the Aeon of Strife.[1]
The destructive civil war ended when Khas, using xel'naga-derived artifacts called khaydarin crystals, re-created the psionic link. It became the basis of a new philosophy called the Khala.

Purity of essence? Mental connection? Philosophy of Khala? Familiar or what? It is like a frigg'en metaphor to our discussion. It looks like Blizzard Company also encoded some deep philosophy in a different form. ( Which is why I love 'em xD) Anyways, Protoss...could they be referring to the "human prototype"? According to the game, the Protoss had a war called the Aeon of Strife because they lost their primal link of telepathic connection. Without this connection, the Protoss tribes had shut off their communication from their neighbors entirely, resulting to misapprehension and finally war between themselves.
It is only when they found khaydarin crystals, where they could re-established this primal link to end this war.
Perhaps we humans are just like the Protoss? Cut off from the Universal Being? Having wars and conflicts because we cannot understand each other? Do we not also need these "khaydarin crystals" to connect to the Supreme Being and finally regain our peace? Have our gods "the xel'naga" abondoned us? We are an imperfect race, but maybe just like the Protoss we can reestablish this connection of understanding and get rid of our feuds.

Kinda sporadic I know, but maybe this telepathic thing we are talking about is exactly a the form of connection toward the Universal Being right?
What do you guys thing?

Hello; hows it going?

Last night I was bored and plating around and completely forgot about the Forum My bad Ha Ha

Is it just me or did this discussion just grew by 2 pages today. Man that is a lot of writing.

To me telepathy is still freaky. Just hearing the word makes me freak out, but as you said a gut feeling MAY also be considered as a sense of telepathy. That is true, but a gut feeling usually comes from exposure to the same things over and over again, so how does this relate to the fact of quieting the soul/Ego and being able to understand what other people are thinking?


Andy:

Bringing up Star Craft just go my Attention so I had to replay to your awesome Reply.

Do many of you know the legend of Atlantis, the City. the story started when Plato went on a trip to northern Africa. There it is said that he had met people that had escape Atlantis as it sunk. After the trip, Plato drew maps of what they said to be the capitol city of Atlantis, where they used the power of crystals to support their existence. they were said to be able to read each others mind, but with so much power, legend says Poseidon from Greek mythology flooded and destroyed this great civilization. Many people believed in the word that Plato said including SS Officer Heinrich Himmler of the Nazis.

Could this story be real or is Plato just trying to tell us that if we could read minds, the cycle of nature will make us pay a price for it.

Oh well Enjoy life and be constantly happy, That's my Philosophy

Bye


P.S. Cats Own

Andy.S wrote:By the way...this discussion thread reminds me of Starcraft Protoss. As most of you know, its a Blizzard Company Game and one of it's playable races is the alien-looking Protoss.

Heres a brief history about them from a Starcraft Fan Site.

The protoss were discovered by the xel'naga on Aiur, a world the xel'naga had previously engineered. They were fascinated by their purity of form and their mental connection, believing that to be purity of essence. Pushing the evolution of the protoss, the xel'naga eventually descended to Aiur. The protoss, who revered the xel'naga as gods, learned much from them. However, these discoveries divided the protoss, causing their psychic links to disappear and wars to break out amongst them. The xel'naga left the planet as the protoss fell into the Aeon of Strife.[1]
The destructive civil war ended when Khas, using xel'naga-derived artifacts called khaydarin crystals, re-created the psionic link. It became the basis of a new philosophy called the Khala.

Purity of essence? Mental connection? Philosophy of Khala? Familiar or what? It is like a frigg'en metaphor to our discussion. It looks like Blizzard Company also encoded some deep philosophy in a different form. ( Which is why I love 'em xD) Anyways, Protoss...could they be referring to the "human prototype"? According to the game, the Protoss had a war called the Aeon of Strife because they lost their primal link of telepathic connection. Without this connection, the Protoss tribes had shut off their communication from their neighbors entirely, resulting to misapprehension and finally war between themselves.
It is only when they found khaydarin crystals, where they could re-established this primal link to end this war.
Perhaps we humans are just like the Protoss? Cut off from the Universal Being? Having wars and conflicts because we cannot understand each other? Do we not also need these "khaydarin crystals" to connect to the Supreme Being and finally regain our peace? Have our gods "the xel'naga" abondoned us? We are an imperfect race, but maybe just like the Protoss we can reestablish this connection of understanding and get rid of our feuds.

Kinda sporadic I know, but maybe this telepathic thing we are talking about is exactly a the form of connection toward the Universal Being right?
What do you guys thing?

Somehow this seems deja vu - deeps concepts suddenly appearing in your daily video games.

I agree with what you say - only that we probably don't need a crystal to connect with the universal being - we can do it through cleansing our minds. But yet, as Vicky said, our superficial relationships are the connections between people that stem from the ego-mind. At that being said, I actually have a question: do you guys believe in pure, untainted friendship; the kind that has you just basking in the other's presence or you don't feel the need for conversation when you're with them? I know I do, but I just wanted to see a different perspective.

Actually, telepathy is said in this conversation to be like connecting to the Essence - then is telepathy affected by the certain amount of time a person stays by another? If we kept with the same person for a long time, and got used to their presence, does that increase the chances of obtaining the realm where we can establish telepathy?

Sometimes I think telepathy is simply seeing what someone means by what they mean - when we strip ourselves of the ego-mind we are letting all "voluntary perception" fall away - it just leaves our true, first impression of the things around us. That is when we reach a "inner-peace", or a moment of stillness that is evoked by just letting our Essence simmer. Telepathy may merely be the initial feeling you get when you see something, when there's no society to tell you. The only reason we can't fathom that kind of telepathy is because we have our society's values drilled so deep into us that we just can't imagine a world without all the modern electronics/ideas around us. So going back to telepathy, it might just be a very natural way of "feeling". We feel what the person is feeling.

But going to that, does that mean that we know what the other person is thinking? Or is that just because we all have the same ego-mind, so we automatically understand what the ego-mind is thinking?

Sorry if my questions are kind of confusing - they are to me too.

Sometimes I think telepathy is simply seeing what someone means by what they mean - when we strip ourselves of the ego-mind we are letting all "voluntary perception" fall away - it just leaves our true, first impression of the things around us. That is when we reach a "inner-peace", or a moment of stillness that is evoked by just letting our Essence simmer. Telepathy may merely be the initial feeling you get when you see something, when there's no society to tell you. The only reason we can't fathom that kind of telepathy is because we have our society's values drilled so deep into us that we just can't imagine a world without all the modern electronics/ideas around us. So going back to telepathy, it might just be a very natural way of "feeling". We feel what the person is feeling.

Kind of like what the poem packet said, right? Seeing the poem as it really is, instead of letting our first impressions, our selves get in the way of the meaning. Hmm. So in a way what you're saying is, telepathy is kind of like the state of mind [and by that, I mean the 'pure mind', not the ego mind] we are born into, before society taints it with its values. We feel what other people can feel simply because there is nothing blocking the way, in the beginning.

...Which means that babies/children would have more telepathy/telepathy-like senses than do adults, which is [well, I remember seeing this somewhere, but correct me if I'm wrong] true according to several studies. Because they haven't truly experienced society's pressures yet, they are much more prone to detecting the emotions surrounding them, and would probably be more outspoken about it from the way I see it.

But going to that, does that mean that we know what the other person is thinking? Or is that just because we all have the same ego-mind, so we automatically understand what the ego-mind is thinking?

Wouldn't that then connect back to what someone was saying [sorry, I don't remember who it is, too many posts o.o;] a few posts back, that that would make everything 'predictable' in a way, because the ego mind is predictable, or at least much more so than our Beings, which are spontaneous. So...would that be telepathy or not, if everything was predictable? :O

but a gut feeling usually comes from exposure to the same things over and over again

Gut feelings can be reprogrammed by experiences. Hmm, are gut feelings like the sixth sense?

...Which means that babies/children would have more telepathy/telepathy-like senses than do adults, which is [well, I remember seeing this somewhere, but correct me if I'm wrong] true according to several studies. Because they haven't truly experienced society's pressures yet, they are much more prone to detecting the emotions surrounding them, and would probably be more outspoken about it from the way I see it.

I remember reading this, saying that at least there are more reports of children displaying telepathy.

To Fermin’s question, as everyone has the ability to experience telepathy, yet we are not taught about this power, then we are not typically aware of it. Is telepathy natural to us because telepathy may have always been within us, yet as we grow older we are taught by society to “talk and encapsulate our thoughts into words,” and therefore our ability to telepathy is suppressed more? Maybe our words are a result to our telepathy? But since we speak afterwards, we think it is the words that are helping us communicate, instead of the telepathy. Hmm, do those who have disabilities in some senses show to have more capability to telepathy (for example, someone who is not able to speak)? Or we don’t even acknowledge telepathy going on, as that is not really what society seems to be encouraging? Isn’t telepathy the way that other species communicate with each other, such as dolphins? Maybe telepathy is the main way that we communicated with each other, but then with the ego mind blocking us from connecting with others, we developed speech? Which leads me to wonder, can the ego mind be expanded as we grow? Is there a limit to our ego mind? How is telepathy similar and different to mind-reading?

Is telepathy an expansion of intuition? If so, then is not telepathy part of the primary wisdom?

Bravo!

Babies are telepathic. Telepathy is part of the intuition. Such great ideas written so concisely! With everything that everyone has said so far, I'm starting to get the feeling that 'telepathy' is the essential word that can encapsulate the whole meaning of Transcendentalism other than 'interconnectivity.' Now, can you guys think of evidence of telepathy in our physical world? Not the twin example because that one is used way too often, but something else...(it doesn't have to be a demonstation of telepathy that is like magic, but just a deep connection between two people)...something personal or something factual from studies of the brain during meditation and what not.

I remember reading this, saying that at least there are more reports of children displaying telepathy.

Like this example of telepathy from Anita is great.

but a gut feeling usually comes from exposure to the same things over and over again

I'm not sure I agree with this, you guys. What do you guys think about this quote?

Thanks for all you replies!

but a gut feeling usually comes from exposure to the same things over and over again

Funny thing is this quote reminds me of FMA, this comic that I was obsessed with. There is character inside, Col. Mustang who had gone to war in one of those imaginary lands, and what I clearly remember him saying "after the years on the battle field, I learn to trust my guy instinct." Sadly, that is the closest example that I can think of for the comment.

I agree what is being said, because it's like trial-and-error that we learned in biology. When we are faced with the same situation, we learn to avoid anything that may provide potential harm. It is the gut feeling that we get from the exposure to the constant trial-and-error that we learn to trust our instincts and avoid certain situation

Like what Ivy said about the trial-and-error learning pattern, we gradually become familiar to the things around us the longer time we spend with it, until we can pretty much just 'know' generally what's going to happen for those things; it may not be an exact thought or even in word form, but it's just that 'I know what's gonna happen' feeling that we all get from time to time. But...does this habituation make the theory of telepathy less intuition and more of a 'scientific', more 'rigid' pattern instead of a train of spontaneous insight? Hmm. Or is this form of 'knowing' separate from telepathy and is instead a figment of the ego mind which trains us to do this just to get by our day-to-day duties much faster; while telepathy is in a whole other realm altogether? :O

Telepathy is, perhaps, as Fermin suggests, an essential part of intuition and thus the inner self of the individual. It is through telepathy – or simply a higher degree of communication through connection – that we are able to understand one another in beautifully profound ways. I am quite certain that this is also connected to the “art of prediction,” as I mentioned previously in my posts. As Shawanne and Ivy discussed, it is indisputably ordinary for one to come into contact with not necessarily the essence of another, but have a “gut feeling” that is derived from “exposure to the same things over and over again.” It is this routine exposure to the exact same, or similar, experiences that enable us to be familiar to the feelings or emotions that represent the ring of connection that we are bound in. This “binding” or beings and their inner spirits also brings about the ability to predict – and just to know, as if by instinct (is this instinct, I wonder?) – others’ actions, emotions, and feelings.

And what if we become entrapped in this holy ring that our beings have, over time, become so deeply immersed in? Will we be able to escape and free ourselves from the connection that we may wish to discard? The terrifying ego-mind enters the scene yet again – if the ego-mind is capable of rejecting the ego-minds and beings of others, it certainly is capable of resisting separation and discontinuity. I suppose it will always be a frighteningly destructive, subtly influential, dangerous monster. But it is a necessary monster, however; it is an element of our body that is just as spontaneous as our minds, and just as instinctual as our souls. We cannot be detached from our ego-minds but, rather, are forced to acknowledge its existence within us.

As Shawanne pointed out, telepathy might be a portion of a more scientific and rigid pattern in our daily lives, and this brings me to another thought. Since it is natural that the ego-mind penetrates the individual by putting the body into a type of trance – or even more severely, sleep – and gradually manipulates the individual to follow the desires of its own wants, does this automatic “steering” of the ego-mind become a “rigid pattern”? It has already been noted that we (blindly) follow the ego-mind’s will and thus power, so is the familiarity with experiences, which appears so frequently to be a pattern – purely a tool utilized by the ego-mind? And if it is, is telepathy not a tool brought about by the ego-mind? I’m sure it is a bit of both; telepathy can be both innate within the individual self, meaning that it entirely uncorrupted by the ego-mind, or perhaps it has everything to do with the ego-mind, meaning that it is conjured up by the ego-mind and thoroughly corrupted by it. (I am just extending Shawanne’s train of thought, since I am presently beginning to question the true nature of telepathy, too). I think I may sound too black-and-white, though.

I’m sure it is a bit of both; telepathy can be both innate within the individual self, meaning that it entirely uncorrupted by the ego-mind, or perhaps it has everything to do with the ego-mind, meaning that it is conjured up by the ego-mind and thoroughly corrupted by it.

I think it has something to do with mind and soul, whereas the soul is the source and the mind as the output. Of course, the egomind can get into the way and corrupt this telepathic connection...but what do you mean by corruption? As in the egomind's voice suddenly attacks other people's minds within the channel? I would call that "bad" frequency xD Like when you change radio channels- argh, off topic- Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that I agree with your concept but do not understand why the would the ego mind want to "corrupt" telepathy. The ego mind is usually focused on the mind bearer...so why would it try corrupt telepathy if its all about itself? Are you suggesting that ego minds want to connect to others? To make itself be heard?
Ouch man...if that is true then the ego mind sounds like a friggen monster!!! >.<

Hmmm. what Angel has said is truly interesting...Is telepathy rigid or spontaneous?

When we view from the point of telepathy is a part of our essence, so our thoughts can be transmitted to each other at times of being on the same channel.
However, from another perspective, if telepathy derived from the ego-mind, then it is used in a rigid structure, because it only follows the ego-mind based ideas. If the ego mind creates telepathy, then how does it work though?

Also, does the collective unconscious applies to the telepathy that is a result of the ego mind? After all communication between the individuals is still an intertwined feeling...right? (oh, and it's kind of scary seeing collective unconscious on Paolo's practice test...)

I think it has something to do with mind and soul, whereas the soul is the source and the mind as the output. Of course, the egomind can get into the way and corrupt this telepathic connection...but what do you mean by corruption? As in the egomind's voice suddenly attacks other people's minds within the channel? I would call that "bad" frequency xD Like when you change radio channels- argh, off topic- Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that I agree with your concept but do not understand why the would the ego mind want to "corrupt" telepathy. The ego mind is usually focused on the mind bearer...so why would it try corrupt telepathy if its all about itself? Are you suggesting that ego minds want to connect to others? To make itself be heard?
Ouch man...if that is true then the ego mind sounds like a friggen monster!!! >.<

Hmm. I guess that [the part I underlined] would make a lot of sense, then, building onto what Angel said. About the corruption, maybe what she meant was like...how there are two parts to telepathy? [Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not Angel, obviously. 8D] Like, there's this 'pure' part, the connection of everything and everyone's beings that could be achieved through the universal, nonlocal essence; then there's the 'ego-mind' part, the part that arises from people gradually getting used to having the same response to things over and over again [i.e. if a dude were to talk to a lady every single day, and the lady always talks about her daughter, then the man would start knowing what these talks would eventually lead to: her daughter. Kinda weird example, but you get my point...right? xD] so that they would develop a 'gut feeling' to whatever they would encounter that is similar to what they've encountered before.

...Does that make sense, or am I just rambling? o.o

Also, does the collective unconscious applies to the telepathy that is a result of the ego mind? After all communication between the individuals is still an intertwined feeling...right? (oh, and it's kind of scary seeing collective unconscious on Paolo's practice test...)

LOL, I get what you mean. It was like, 'dude, this sounds kinda familiar. O.O'

Yup. Well, I think it does [and I could be wrong, of course]; uh...crap. I forgot what I was going to say; see above? -will come back to edit later when I remember-

Hey guys, its Allen again.
There was a special request that i write on here too. Despite the fact that this is kind of fun. Straight to the topic of telepathy then.
First part of the question, what is telepathy? communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception.Says dictionary.com. I do not believe there is any form of telepathy, because it is almost impossible to block out all your sense. However, i do believe we can transfer a message without talking or giving hand signals. Also, we cannot confuse the ideas of prediction and anticipate with just plain old "i have a feeling." With this being said, there is no further need of how do we access this power or gift. After all, we are not all professor Xaviers.
I believe that many of the 10th grade honor students have mixed up with the definition of what telepathy really is. Correct me if im wrong, after all im only in english regulars, that telepathy is only telepathy when it comes to no senses are used. That means that we cannot even see the person, smell the person, touch the person or have any emotional attachment to the person. In other words, we have to communicate with someone we dont even know. This is going out of the topic, but i am assuming emotion counts as a sense. In conclusion, how can we communicate to someone without knowing who they are and what to communicate.

That means that we cannot even see the person, smell the person, touch the person or have any emotional attachment to the person

Hmmm, are you saying that emotions is like the sixth sense? But why can’t we have any emotional attachment to the person? "Telepathy" is derived from the Greek terms tele ("distant") and pathe ("occurrence" or "feeling"). Telepathy appears to be related to a person’s emotional state. So you’re saying that we can pretty much only experience telepathy with someone whom we don’t really know very well, or don’t know at all? Since with those people who we are closest to, we are bound to have emotional attachment towards them. Then how come in the cases of telepathy, usually they occur between people who are very close? Yes, there have been cases of telepathy involving total strangers, but we don't hear about it as much as friends/family communicating telepathy. Hmm, but is it because since they are total strangers, they do not know about it? Or does this communication foreshadows something, maybe they share a connection and might be closer later on in life? Maybe they have shared similar life experiences, therefore they share a special bond? There are many uncertainties, someone whom we just have communicated telepathy in France might be our co-worker in the next year. So we have thoughts flowing out of our minds. They may enter any recipient’s mind without our acknowledgement. Thus sometimes we have communicated to someone without knowing it. This makes me think of group telepathy!

I think Allen's definition of telepathy "communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception....That means that we cannot even see the person, smell the person, touch the person or have any emotional attachment to the person. In other words, we have to communicate with someone we dont even know." doesn't refer to telepathy can only happen between strangers, but it happens at a moment when we are not seeing, smelling, touching or being influenced emotionally by the particular person. For example, I may be friends with person A, but if I am in my own home without the company of the person and yet experience a connecting force that results in communication, it is telepathy.

but a gut feeling usually comes from exposure to the same things over and over again

Like what others have said previously, I think that a “a gut feeling” can be the result of the ego mind’s constant exposure to certain kinds of “feelings” or “people” that would lead it to jump to conclusions when it sees something or someone with similar emotions emitting off of them the next time. If this is the case, isn’t this “gut feeling” the source of bias within our population? Isn’t this what causes people to misjudge others based on their appearances – which may by the source that provides that “certain kind of feeling?” So, yes, a gut feeling can be developed through perpetual exposure to certain feelings.

YET, though this theory may be credible, I still have my doubts about it. First of all, if form certain feelings about people with a particular unwanted trait by judging them based on the kind of emotion that they are radiating at that moment, then isn’t this kind of “gut feeling” not spontaneous? Isn’t this a result of societal conditioning? How can we be sure that a person is “like a particular way” before we actually get to know them? Maybe they were emitting waves that seem “negative” to us when we met them because they are having a bad day? Or maybe they just choose to dress a certain way that day? Therefore, how is this kind of so called “gut feeling” a gut feeling at all? Isn’t this just the ego mind playing tricks on us and making us judge current situations based on the past just so it won’t have to face the fear of actually needing to get to know the person?

Therefore, this is why I, for the most part, disagree with this quote. I believe that a “gut feeling” comes from our intuition, when it is able to outshine the incessant thinking of the ego mind, and deliver a message to us. Here’s an example. Don’t we experience times in which we just suddenly have an urge to do something? Okay, so let’s say, hypothetically, there’s this person named Amanda, who is just the most pompous and egotistical person in the world. She is not capable of remorse. However, one day when she hurts a person whom she felt was very emotionally close to, and ends up driving away that person. Shocked and saddened, Amanda walks home, whilst feeling waves of contrition wash through her. She suddenly realizes that she’s been horribly treating those around her. Then, she has this gut feeling telling her that she must apologize and mend her relationship before it’s too late. So, isn’t this “gut feeling” not a result of a previous experience, given that Amanda has not felt an ounce of regret before. I believe that a “gut feeling” results from our essence. It shows us truth, and because we know, intuitively, that the message is the truth, we follow it, without any doubt. Now, I believe that is what creates a “gut feeling.”

First to Anitas point. Anitas assumptions are totally going against what i am saying in my previous post. I did not mention anything about emotion being a sixth sense. However, emotion comes from the sense. This being said, telepathy clearly states that we cannot use any of our sense to communicate, therefore we cannot use our emotions either. Anita stated that "Thus sometimes we communicate to someone without knowing it." If this is the case, what evidence, proof, or hard core facts do we have to state that this is telepathy? Obviously, we cannot say this isnt telepathy but we cannot say this is telepathy either. In conclusion, we cannot base an unknown feeling an label it something that could or could not be telepathy, because it would work either way.

Second to Hannahs point. Yes we may be able to communicate with our friends, but that totally goes against what i stated first about using emotion. We already have a certain emotion towards our friends, so that we know how they think, feel or do. With this, we can anticipate or predict what they are going to say or do. This is NOT telepathy, it is a simple "reading and reacting" as Coach Campbell says. For example, lets say JT one day sneaks behind me and is doing something mysterious behind my back. I have an emotion connection with him and knowing him, i know he is going to slap my ass. Does this mean that i read his mind? Or i communicated with him? No, it does not. It simply means that i know him and i know what he is planning to do.

My last and final post about this issue. Visual this in your mind. There are two rooms, no windows, no doors, nothing, but what separates these two rooms is a one way mirror. A very thick one too. Lets say one of your loved one is strapped to a chair with a gun pointed at your loved one. It is about to trigger in 5 seconds. However, you are in the other room and you see a BIG FAT RED STOP button under the chair. Your loved one can reach this button too. So, all these people who believe in telepathy are saying that you guys have a better chance of saving your loved one by mentally focusing on a message through your head and deliver to your loved one, rather than banging on the mirror, yelling and screaming. What are the odds that your loved one will die?

Telepathy or being realistic with hard core evidence?

Well, to answer allen's questions, first his question to anita's post. Is it really an unknown feeling? or is it just something that we do not know how to state WHAT IT IS. Also, do we need to have hard, cold facts to say something is something? I mean, most people would try to stay away from something they don't understand, or don't know how to label, but wouldn't this just be the classicist mind in a person taking over, while the romanticist part would just say, lets not understand, but enjoy what this unknown feeling is?

With the red button question, if telepathy were to really exist, then if we could think about our loved one being able to reach the button and push it hard enough, then, why couldn't it happen? This is also connected to the belief that if someone were to stare at a person long enough, and hard enough, and to think of that person hard enough, then, eventually, the person would notice. How can this happen? Is there a pull, or something going on between the gaze of the person? The thing is, i believe that when a person stares at you long and hard enough, a person will actually feel something, and look that way, even if it is not to the person that is staring at you.

(Fermin, thats #70 )

Wow….so much has happened within the past two days.

That means that we cannot even see the person, smell the person, touch the person or have any emotional attachment to the person. In other words, we have to communicate with someone we dont even know.

Regarding the dictionary defintion of ‘telepathy’ which is communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception, perhaps it means that telepathical communcation cannot happen on the tangible and solid bases, like through touching or hearing. Our senses are what create that physical domain, or the domain where things appear to be solid. But actually, this level is a manisfestaion of the higher levels of existence, in which things intermingle and take form through energy frequency and waves. Telepathy is something that we cannot feel. It simply ISNT tangible because it is a interconnection of our Beings – at essence. This isnt tangible and the connection that we reach through meditation – remember annie’s post about how two people meditating at different places can feel and interconnect with each other? – isnt tangible either. This experience is something that our senses cannot perceive. I mean, we cant see that everything is made up of energy waves with different frequencies and vibrations. With our ego mind dominating and unawareness of the Being that exists within each individual, one will think that the world is composed of solid objects, each possesing a separate and individual entities. Telepathy, therefore, does not mean that we have to communiate with someone we dont know. Said in oversimplified terms, it may simply be an inner connection that our Beings are able to reach and experience…so that we can feel what others are feeling and therefore connect with them.

OHAI LUOH -pokes-

So anyways...

With the red button question, if telepathy were to really exist, then if we could think about our loved one being able to reach the button and push it hard enough, then, why couldn't it happen? This is also connected to the belief that if someone were to stare at a person long enough, and hard enough, and to think of that person hard enough, then, eventually, the person would notice. How can this happen? Is there a pull, or something going on between the gaze of the person? The thing is, i believe that when a person stares at you long and hard enough, a person will actually feel something, and look that way, even if it is not to the person that is staring at you.

Sort of like using The Secret...in a somewhat different kind of way, you mean? Hmm. So it's like, if we think about it hard enough, it will happen--if we yell out in our head at someone else, they'll get what you're trying to say, or at least the gist of it, eventually? But how can we prove this? Going back to

First to Anitas point. Anitas assumptions are totally going against what i am saying in my previous post. I did not mention anything about emotion being a sixth sense. However, emotion comes from the sense. This being said, telepathy clearly states that we cannot use any of our sense to communicate, therefore we cannot use our emotions either. Anita stated that "Thus sometimes we communicate to someone without knowing it." If this is the case, what evidence, proof, or hard core facts do we have to state that this is telepathy? Obviously, we cannot say this isnt telepathy but we cannot say this is telepathy either. In conclusion, we cannot base an unknown feeling an label it something that could or could not be telepathy, because it would work either way.

and

Well, to answer allen's questions, first his question to anita's post. Is it really an unknown feeling? or is it just something that we do not know how to state WHAT IT IS. Also, do we need to have hard, cold facts to say something is something? I mean, most people would try to stay away from something they don't understand, or don't know how to label, but wouldn't this just be the classicist mind in a person taking over, while the romanticist part would just say, lets not understand, but enjoy what this unknown feeling is?

I guess we could make an assumption that while telepathy could not /exactly/ be 'proven' per se, but Luoh's post does make a point. We can't see love, but we can feel it--so it exists, doesn't it? Yeah. I might be wrong, so...reply?

Luoh wrote:Well, to answer allen's questions, first his question to anita's post. Is it really an unknown feeling? or is it just something that we do not know how to state WHAT IT IS. Also, do we need to have hard, cold facts to say something is something? I mean, most people would try to stay away from something they don't understand, or don't know how to label, but wouldn't this just be the classicist mind in a person taking over, while the romanticist part would just say, lets not understand, but enjoy what this unknown feeling is?

With the red button question, if telepathy were to really exist, then if we could think about our loved one being able to reach the button and push it hard enough, then, why couldn't it happen? This is also connected to the belief that if someone were to stare at a person long enough, and hard enough, and to think of that person hard enough, then, eventually, the person would notice. How can this happen? Is there a pull, or something going on between the gaze of the person? The thing is, i believe that when a person stares at you long and hard enough, a person will actually feel something, and look that way, even if it is not to the person that is staring at you.

(Fermin, thats #70 )

Of course we need cold hard facts to say something is something. So if the animal looks like a duck, behaves like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck, taste like a duck, its not a duck? How does that make sense. If we want to sit in our chair, read this forum and enjoy what this unknown feeling is, the there is absolutely no point in discussing if there is such thing as telepathy. -.-

Well to your 2nd paragraph... All i can say is good luck to your loved ones while you stare at them and watch your probability of them surviving. Also, if we stare at someone long and hard enough, they might turn around because of that certain feeling. We all had it before. However, we cant label that telepathy until thats proven. [

"I guess we could make an assumption that while telepathy could not /exactly/ be 'proven' per se, but Luoh's post does make a point. We can't see love, but we can feel it--so it exists, doesn't it? Yeah. I might be wrong, so...reply?"- Shawanne. I actually recently discussed this section of telepathy/love with proey last night. This is totally true however, we can see the love actually being there. We can see people do actions of love or ways to express the love. We also feel this love that is being expressed or this vibe thats getting off the action. Therefore, we actually can feel the love there. Which allows us to label that "vibe", "feeling", etc. love. Unlike telepathy, we do not know what that feeling is. Or if it is just plain old luck.

And Fermin, i think this will be my last post . Hope it brought back more debate into your discussion. I need to do other english stuff for my own class now. GL.

Must telepathy be completely without physicalities of any sort? like no eye contact, no touch, no anything of the physical domain? Is that the defining conditions for this form of communication to be labeled as "telepathy"?
couldn't one always argue that hte fact that we're sharing the same atmosphere, the same supply of air, that we're always in contact with each other? the defining lines between the physical and the quantum domain aren't always so defined - probably because the line is indeed very thin, and one is not iwth the exclusion of another - things are all so correlated. doesn't that mean that telepathy can happen under any circumstances? but we're only sure of it being "telepathy" when ther's absolutely no physical contact with that person?