Feed Icon RSS 1.0 XML Feed available

Correspondence Explaining Realityhandbook's Unusual Life

Date: 18-Feb-2008/22:15+3:00

Tags: ,

Characters: present, past

I met with a group of local people this past week who are involved in channeling, and explained my ideas about wanting to speak with someone whose focus was on exchanging technical information (rather than just going on the "self-help" angle or abstract work with feelings/energies). They pointed me to Lee Carroll, who is known for his channelings of an entity known as Kryon. He presents some ideas about DNA, and you can read the expected critical reaction on the James Randi forum:
My letter suspends disbelief; I decided to explain my own ideas/hopes about channeling and how it might be more robust to criticism (as well as arguing that it's worth it to make the effort). I also address the challenges in mental modes of communication that are bypassing alphabetic or verbal layers. I think this will be my new general introduction to my attitudes on channeling and goals with it.

Greetings Kryon, Lee, and/or Staff,
While trying to locate channelers with more science education than the average person, a local group referred me to your site. Specifically, they mentioned some of your publications that describe yet-unknown aspects of DNA. It raised some questions for me, but to really explain those questions I have to first explain myself. If you have the time to review this letter I would greatly appreciate it.
I seek scientific channels because I myself have an engineering background, and am credentialed and considered competent in that area. Yet I am a chronic lucid dreamer and firmly believe that I am in contact with consciousnesses outside of my own during these dreams. It bothers me that this belief is dismissed by most of the educated people I meet (who I otherwise enjoy for reasons entirely tangential to our impasse on metaphysical beliefs). Thus, I have made it a personal quest to do what I can to gather proof of the phenomena that will satisfy the category of critical thinkers who I'd like to outreach to... as it seems I have a unique crossover of skills to do so.
My foremost tool is curiosity. Once I realize I am dreaming, I will remain as calm as I can (however amazing or horrific the circumstances) and I will question beings about their nature and try to establish a frame of reference. I ask them about their awareness of Earth, and I ask them if to describe or demonstrate the mechanism of how we are communicating. I'll pick up objects and ask what they are, disassemble them, or improvise experiments with the physics that are in play. To the extent I can, I offer keywords and information which would assist in locating me in the context of geography and the world-wide-web.
Thus I think of myself as an inter-dimensional explorer and map-maker, and I write many of my dreams down in my journal-- which you are welcome to read:
Yet clearly, my dream techniques are not as fruitful as being able to have an open connection to alien intelligences while fully awake. Channeling seems like a more ideal and less cloudy way of exchanging information with these entities, if I could develop that skill. Or of course, if someone already had the skill I'd be satisfied to ask them questions, if they thought like I do. This made me wonder if you share my aspirations to build these maps and bridges... as opposed to shifting attention away from that pursuit.
I personally find it suspicious when a channeler avoids the subject of verification... which even if I thought it wasn't terribly important I'd at least think it was interesting. Though I can fully accept that it is difficult to relay words across a channel that will make sense to the audience without context. It calls to mind this joke:
A farming family had been working for generations, without any of them attending college. But finally they'd saved enough money that they could send young Bobby to the university in the next town. When Bobby came back home after his first semester, all the kin folk eagerly came to visit and gather around the dinner table to see how their most educated relative was doing.
"Bobby," said Pa, "why don't you tell us all something smart they learned you?"
The relatives looked on eagerly. Bobby scratched his head for a minute and then said, "Oh, here's one. Pi r square!"
Everyone bowed their heads sadly. Pa shook his head, and said: "Doggone it boy, I don't know what they're teaching you at that school. But even us country folk know that pi r round!!"
I've gathered that dream communication is done through symbolic exchange between interfacing minds. To give words letter-by-letter is arduous and error-prone in my mental sphere, and requires averaging and repetition. (Not to mention the necessity that the receiving and transmitting parties share knowledge of a certain awareness of each other's written language, or have access to automated translation technology.) If channeling is at all similar, then I imagine the average person trying to describe a computer to someone 1000 years ago might sound like this:
present: "...so you see, every K-O-M-P-O-O-T-R-E has a lightning rope."
past: "A what?"
present: "A lightning rope. It gives flame to the C-M-P-U-T-T-E-R."
past: "Wait a minute, but you were talking earlier about the rope to the inkwell and pen. They also carry lightning?"
present: "Yes, those... uh, U-B-S... I mean, U-S-B ropes, they do carry a small amount of lightning. But the lightning ropes carry more."
past: "How much more?"
present: "Uh... I don't know. It can make a rat light up, but you still have to plug in inkwells with a lightning rope... so..."
past: "What do vermin have to do with any of this?"
present: "No, not a rat, forget I said that. I meant to say a pen which draws to the page you are reading and changes it, connected by U-S-S-B rope."
It requires a persistence to communicate in this fashion with so many barriers, but I do think it's possible. In fact, if I wanted to send the idea for a good experiment for producing readily usable electricity for someone in year 1000 I could do so even if the channel were "noisier" than this... assuming there was a real connection and neither side was going to give up. I find it unfortunate that I do not see most channel/entity/interviewer groups using methodologies that could lead to such breakthroughs.
Yet even if it is somehow meddling to deliver powerful technology into the hands of channelers, I don't think it has to be that extreme. When thinking about the nature of communication with interdimensional entities, I ponder all the non-technical things a human being--even a simple one--would have to offer an alien. For instance: they could explain Tetris, which is fun no matter what dimension you play it in. They could draw and explain a Rubik's Cube, even if they had no idea how to build one. If you asked a human to sing a few songs from the past few decades, they'd give you some out-of-tune renditions of favorites by Madonna and Prince.
The channeling community, in my experience, does not generally sparkle with these kinds of alien gifts. Yet as the Ghostbusters say, "We're Ready To Believe You". I'd like to have discussions with a channeler at my level of communication and technical skill who actively encourages the line of questioning that I speak of. If you or your representatives do not have interest, I'd certainly appreciate you forwarding this on to anyone (well known or unknown) who shares the agenda.
Regards, and thank you for reading...!
Currently I am experimenting with using Disqus for comments, however it is configured that you don't have to log in or tie it to an account. Simply check the "I'd rather post as a guest" button after clicking in the spot to type in a name.
comments powered by Disqus
copy write %C:/0304-1020 {Met^(00C6)ducation}

The accounts written here are as true as I can manage. While the words are my own, they are not independent creative works of fiction —in any intentional way. Thus I do not consider the material to be protected by anything, other than that you'd have to be crazy to want to try and use it for genuine purposes (much less disingenuous ones!) But who's to say?