Georges Lakhovsky’s Multi-Wave Oscillator

[Nancy_Hutchison]

What "is" the mind?
IMO...a processor, like a computer.
Data collection and storage. Then "self" chooses what action to take based upon the available information.

Fight or Flight
is that instinct?
or free will choice?

Nancy

Excerpts taken for synthesis power of the underlying issue, as I see it.

Nancy
Are you not talking about “the brain” ?

Can “data collection and storage” or a Choice made upon “available information” conditioned by a imposed “programming” ….

explain
Compassion ? explain Love ? or Hate ? not to mention that so innocuous term – “Consciousness” ? I can come to love what I was conditioned to hate ! I can awake one day and “feel” compassion towards what I had only “felt” repulsion ! I can even one day awake to “subjective variables” that are at complete odds with all the “empirical data” I had known before!


What IS the mind ?

Someone goes into a coma and gets out of it speaking Mandarin, another playing the violin , another still painting beautiful, exquisite paintings. The first one never had spoken a word of it, the other never played a simple tamborete and the other even had ever painted a wall !

A kid that can’t even perform the simple task of feeding himself is put inside an helicopter, flown over a landscape he has never seen and upon landing, grabs a pencil and draws a perfect aerial perspective of it without ever lifting the pencil from the board until he’s finished ?

Another kid takes a stick from a tree and with it “feels” water 250 feet below surface ?

Yet another spends his childhood alone and his adolescence tortured by medical science, and ends up having “anomalous influence upon otherwise inaccessible material processes” ?


What IS the mind ?

Khalil Gibran had some interesting things to say.
His interpretation was the "soul" (mind) versus the "spirit".
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/ ... lil_Gibran

Soul--mind = "head talk" that stuff that rattles around between your ears.
Processing info/data, then decisions made based upon programming.
IMO--your brain is the "hardware", your mind is the "software".

Does your spirit control your mind? Or your mind control your spirit?
The Jesus dude talked a lot about making sure your spirit controls your mind...not in the "bible", but in the documents Constantine decided to keep out of the bible.

BTW--we have more than the five senses that we are talk about in school.
There is also the "inner eyes" and the "inner ears"....more stuff the Jesus dude talked about.
Inner ears and inner eyes are not as likely to be manipulated by the mind. However, if your mind rules your spirit, your inner ears and inner eyes don't work.

Nancy

[LuisP]

Nancy
I too believe we have more than the 5 senses. Yes, "inner" ears and eyes, whatever that is, are also in us. Don't know if they're from the "mind", "soul" or "spirit" for it is very hard to even differentiate those concepts since each one of them may well mean the same as all of them.

We are not just flesh and data collectors. And that is one of the questions.

Someone once said that the time span between Cicero and Marcus Aurelius represented the “Instance When Man Stood Alone”, its interval representing, so to speak, the age spent between the end of the Era of the gods and before the beginning of that of the Christ.

Marcus Aurelius.jpg (7.09 KiB) Viewed 2527 times

No wonder then that the emperor-philosopher Marcus was a Stoic, given to Learning and Reason as being the way to understand Life and to dismiss everything else with self-deprecating Meditations such as “In a little while you will have forgotten everything; in a little while everything will have forgotten you”.

But from him I now remember something else - of a completely different nature - which he wrote almost two thousand years ago, in that time span when he, supposedly, was one of those who Stood Alone :
“Our life is what our thoughts make it … (and) the higher we rise on the scale of being, the easier it is to discern a connection even among things separated by vast distances.
Never forget that the universe is a single living organism possessed of one substance and one soul, holding all things suspended in a single consciousness and creating all things with a single purpose, that they might work together spinning and weaving and knotting whatever comes to pass.
Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy.”

Khalil Gibran.jpg (3.58 KiB) Viewed 2527 times

From Khalil Gibran (tx for the link), I will remember this :
“A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle … (for) the veil that clouds your eyes shall be lifted by the hands that wove it”.


It is not "just" a battle for the minds of men ... but also of "knowledge that acts".
Little as it may be.

Because everything is interwoven.

[wags]

BTW--we have more than the five senses that we are talk about in school.
There is also the "inner eyes" and the "inner ears"....more stuff the Jesus dude talked about.
Inner ears and inner eyes are not as likely to be manipulated by the mind. However, if your mind rules your spirit, your inner ears and inner eyes don't work.

Nancy

Totally disagree with you on this Nancy, The mind can rule and in my opinion should rule as it is the centre of reason and enlightenment exist. To dismiss the mind is ridiculous and leaves one open to being manipulated and enticed by the unscrupulous. One can have spirit and the rich tapestry of emotions and are not diminished by thinking for oneself.

I do agree about the senses, to name a few:- Heat, Gravity, Pain, Pressure, the list goes on.

Beware of those who say do not think or say you are being manipulated! What makes them immune from such powerful forces I always ask. Trust your own judgement and do not get succoured into believing in someone or something because you may be get very disappointed.

It is my mind that is my best defence and always always question the unspoken assumptions, if they fail then discard it, regardless of how wonderful, how good it feels, it is just wrong, so start again or modify. A good guide is can an individual do this, if they can they are usually a person with a reasoning and objective mind.

[Nancy_Hutchison]

BTW--we have more than the five senses that we are talk about in school.
There is also the "inner eyes" and the "inner ears"....more stuff the Jesus dude talked about.
Inner ears and inner eyes are not as likely to be manipulated by the mind. However, if your mind rules your spirit, your inner ears and inner eyes don't work.

Nancy

Totally disagree with you on this Nancy, The mind can rule and in my opinion should rule as it is the centre of reason and enlightenment exist. To dismiss the mind is ridiculous and leaves one open to being manipulated and enticed by the unscrupulous. One can have spirit and the rich tapestry of emotions and are not diminished by thinking for oneself.

I do agree about the senses, to name a few:- Heat, Gravity, Pain, Pressure, the list goes on.

Beware of those who say do not think or say you are being manipulated! What makes them immune from such powerful forces I always ask. Trust your own judgement and do not get succoured into believing in someone or something because you may be get very disappointed.

It is my mind that is my best defence and always always question the unspoken assumptions, if they fail then discard it, regardless of how wonderful, how good it feels, it is just wrong, so start again or modify. A good guide is can an individual do this, if they can they are usually a person with a reasoning and objective mind.

Wags,
IMO it is the mind that is manipulated and enticed by the unscrupulous.
That opinion, easily supported by the masses that are swayed by words. Words which invoke fear.
Your "self", your "ego" is the resultant created by your mind. It is your "self/ego" that requires a person to "maintain a high self image".
"Self" separates a person from Spirit. Spirit is that which dances upon the fabric of the Universe.

If you are Spirit ruled, you then use your mind to "maneuver about" in this physical realm.
Thus, your mind is a TOOL that you USE.

Or, it is a tool that others use to control you.
When I say, "the battle is for the minds of men"
I am saying...Will you (Spirit) control you mind...or will the sytem, the programming control your mind?

Wags,
I sense your heart
your Spirit
and pain, your need for "justice"
my hope...and one of the reasons I have continued conversing with you
is to hear from you
sometime
the moment your Spirit is freed from the justice demanded by your mind
demanded by your pain

Nancy

[wags]

Nancy Wrote:-

"...Wags,
I sense your heart
your Spirit
and pain, your need for "justice"
my hope...and one of the reasons I have continued conversing with you
is to hear from you
sometime
the moment your Spirit is freed from the justice demanded by your mind
demanded by your pain

Nancy

Then your senses are failing you, understandable but wrong.

I do not believe that true justice is obtainable as the application of wisdom has fled our judiciary systems. On a less formal side, justice is best practiced when one does not pre judge or make assumptions.

[kevin]

Wags,
I have encountered a trinity of Myself.
My physical vehicle.
My local operating self.
My alternate dimension self.

We have had long chats.

It does not occur in this dimension, and the physical becomes simply part of all of universe, but it is still able to converse, and none too happy about been in a state it doesn't recognise.
My alternate dimension self was at pains to tell My local self to repeat as much as possible to enable the information to be within My local selfs memory field.
My vehicle was constantly more concerned with getting it's 3D physical body back, and the earth.

Luckily We all get on together without fear.

Kevin

[LuisP]

Wags
This might well be best posted inside the “Is it only me ?” thread, but since the flow is happening here, here it goes :

Is it only me that “senses” your hardened self, Wags ?

Rhetorical question.
Not expecting an answer nor wishing to get “personal” and much less give grounds for any public discussion about it.

But fact remains. As it comes across to me. So I just state it, through a rhetorical question.
And I gave it some thought, before doing this, I might add. And time, too. Because I could’ve posted this following your post yesterday, but decided to wait. Your post today only confirmed what I had "sensed" yesterday. And that’s that.

But that is not the point.

The point is : One really, indeed, sees different things, meanings, on another’s words.

Firstly, in no way I saw in Nancy’s post a statement towards “dismissing the mind” that irked and jerked your nerve so. Actually, just saw what she afterwards went to the extent of clarifying , as she sees it – Either the mind is a tool that one uses, or that one is used by. Our “inner” ears and eyes – whatever that is, but that I agree exist as at least you so aptly exemplified with evident examples, but that are short by miles from where I stand – can be more alert or more subside to the point of complete dormancy depending on one being ruled by the “mind” or by the “spirit”.

This is what I saw. If I agree with it or not, that is another issue for I discuss the meanings given to the concepts themselves used by Nancy as they were. But, again, another issue.

Secondly – and more flagrantly – I don’t see in Nancy’s replica to your post the “failing of the senses” you mention. Quite the opposite, actually.

Because your “arguments” to call it such are, themselves, at fault and in fact wrong. In no way in her post was “true justice” being claimed or – much less – as a manifestation of “our judiciary system” ! Nancy only spoke about “justice” being sought. And yes, your rebuttal gave her a spot on “correct sense” for you did not refute that search, only the possibility of it being delivered by “the system”. Because it is devoid of “wisdom”, as you see it.

So, this is my point : why did we both saw so different things ?

Easy answer – maybe because I “shill” for Nancy.
Easy, but stupid and wrong. In fact, I do not even believe anyone believes that, if that “anyone” has suffered my presence and read my posts for these last months. I am nobody’s shill, except of myself.

Hard answer – maybe because I am more receptive to “ear” the Other. Without assumptions, as you too agree is the “best practice”. Be that Other a poster called Nancy or, for instance … Wags.
(Correct answer, btw)

There are many ways of justice being delivered. As you perfectly well know, but may not agree with. Which is another issue, and a very complicated one for I'm not talking just about Lynch's Law. There's also another, much more harsh.


Said my piece. And peace.

Hope you understand that I did it coming from, well … plain friendship.

Nothing else.

[wags]

Luis,

I have no problem with your thoughtful post. I would have to say that my reaction was more complex one than it may seem. I am sensitive to folk that persistently undermine a persons mind, and reality. Many of Nancy's posts contain these possibly inadvertently but they are perceived to be there. Confidence in your ability to sense and understand your world requires you to trust your mind. Statements about mind control etc, or that the person saying it is somehow immune or has special knowledge that overrides ones own sense of reality is an attempt to 'control another mind'.

Nancy and I are at odds on just about everything, I value reason and evidence to back up any discussion, Nancy to me appears to have a different definition of reason and what constitutes real evidence. (For example, because John said it it must be true, and because he cannot communicate conventionally the world must change to suit him. News flash, the world is unfair and maybe the sense of injustice and frustration is really located in Oregon not UK.

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Luis,

I have no problem with your thoughtful post. I would have to say that my reaction was more complex one than it may seem. I am sensitive to folk that persistently undermine a persons mind, and reality. Many of Nancy's posts contain these possibly inadvertently but they are perceived to be there. Confidence in your ability to sense and understand your world requires you to trust your mind. Statements about mind control etc, or that the person saying it is somehow immune or has special knowledge that overrides ones own sense of reality is an attempt to 'control another mind'.

Nancy and I are at odds on just about everything, I value reason and evidence to back up any discussion, Nancy to me appears to have a different definition of reason and what constitutes real evidence. (For example, because John said it it must be true, and because he cannot communicate conventionally the world must change to suit him. News flash, the world is unfair and maybe the sense of injustice and frustration is really located in Oregon not UK.

Wags,
I have greatly failed in my communicating with you.
First--- I have been where you "are", and see the system of presenting and arguing evidence.
Have been quite successful in doing so, as shown by my repeatedly prevailing in the appellate courts.

also...I totally agree with you about the corrupt judicial system. (and worked for over a decade to expose and deal with the corruption)
what I came to understand, is that the judicial system is corrupt because ALL hu-man government on this planet is "wrong".
you may (or may not) have watched my Foundations of Law seminar that is posted on the web.
Law---the relationship of one thing to another

you say you value reason and evidence to back up discussion
I agree. However, I have discovered that "evidence" is more than what we are told, more than what we are programmed to consider as "valid".
Facts--what are facts?
IMO, it is a fact that you bullied me. In your opinion, it is a fact that you did not bully me.

You make conclusions that I find to be bizarre, such as:
"For example, because John said it it must be true, and because he cannot communicate conventionally the world must change to suit him."
John has the ability to do things that you and I are not able to do (at least at this point in our "lives"). Because he can do these things, I listen to what he says about these things.
I try to bring this information from John into a context of communication with others.
I have never, ever said that "because he cannot communicate conventionally the world must change to suit him".
He does not care if you understand him. He does not care if "the world", (and I assume you mean other people by the term "the world") understands him.
He does not expect you, or anyone else to "change to suit him."
However, if you want to understand how he does things that you are unable to do, then you will need to change.

Do you understand the difference?

If you (or anyone else) wants to know how John does that things that he does, then you will need to flush your programming.
Did I say stop using your mind? NO.
Stop using the programming in your mind.
Question everything. Question any and all conclusions, especially conclusions that you "come to yourself".
Question that we have "only five senses". Question what you see, what you hear. Because you have been programmed to make conclusions from very limited amounts of evidence.

Law is the relationship of one thing to another.
the above words are extremely important

I am trying to make a bridge here.
John does not care what you think, or do.
Me....I see this as a personal challenge. Can I break through your programming?
Can I find a words that explain how amazing and wonderful you are?
How you have put limits upon others, upon "evidence that you determine is valid", and by doing so, you have locked yourself into a box?
And instead of seeing the marvelous spirit whom you are, you only see the limits you have put upon others?

wags...come down the rabbit hole with me
keep your mind and cognitive reasoning skills alert
but....dump the programming

Nancy

[LuisP]

To all those who have been reading this thread and share my (passionate) interest in Georges Lakhovsky, this link posted by Nancy on another thread fits like a glove here because – even if it leads to (or because of it !) a commercial offer – it presents a lot of succinct info on the Man and his thoughts and work. In it, links are provided to scholars and a book written about him which I found, by themselves, very useful.

Maybe you will, too.

Besides all that, it links to a site that sells a MWO, which , also just for itself, might merit a look. Because this isn’t exactly an Iphone that one can find around every corner of the globe (Someone comes to mind who looked for it on Ebay, so maybe others there – out there – would like to explore that possibility, regardless of the around $2.000 asked for it).

I haven’t checked those guys or their reliability (maybe I’ll do it, though) so it is up to whoever wants to dwell on this, to figure it out.
If any, I would appreciate – only I ? – their input and findings.

So,
Link posted by Nancy about the article itself : http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter377/index.htm
Link straight to the apparatus : http://altered-states.net/index2.php?/lmwo/lmwo.htm