Conference hydra::dejavu

    In my opinion, Keith Harary has been trying for some time to distance
    himself from his past as the noted psychic Blue Harary.  He is
    unwilling to actually repudiate his past, and still maintains an
    interest (for example, he usually shows up at the annual meetings of
    the Parapsychology Association as a reporter for Omni -- though he
    didn't this year) in parapsychology.  But he is constantly downplaying
    and distancing himself from work he was previously involved with -- for
    example, by challenging descriptions of the extent of his own
    involvement.

    In particular, he is in the middle of a dual of papers in the Journal
    of the American Society for Psychical Research with Stephan Schwartz
    about a commercial treasure-hunting/underwater-psychic- archeology
    project he worked on with Stephen.  Many of his points are good -- the
    project was no where near as rigorous as it could have been, the
    commercial and scientific goals got somewhat muddled, and claims about
    his role are not as well documented as they should have been.  On the
    other hand, he is doing a whole lot of nit-picking without much point.

					Topher

    I didn't have many of the details of Harary's past, but that was
    pretty much the impression I was getting, that he seemed *very*
    anxious about improving his credibility in certain circles by 
    removing himself from possible 'non-mainstream' implications of 
    his aspects of his past work.   The whole Harary quote has to me that
    distinctive 'squirming to sound conventional' sound to it.  :-)
    
    Thanks for the comments.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    How do they test for stuff like remote viewing anyway?

RE: .3 (Mary)

    "Remote viewing" actually describes a kind of test, although there is a
    heavy implication of the kind of target -- and people have used the
    word to describe any ESP about a location.

    The standard test has someone (the "agent") going to a randomly
    selected location.  The percipient -- unaware of the choice of course
    -- describes (or draws, etc.) impressions that they get.  The
    impressions are then compared to a "pool" of locations which includes
    the target location.  Generally this is done with photos of the
    locations but it has also been done with impressions gotten of each
    location by someone who has gone there.  The comparison may be done by
    the percipient, or by independent judges, or both.  If the target
    location is judged most similar to the impressions, that is considered
    a "hit".  Partial scores may or may not be counted in the particular
    experiment.  Although "scoring" is done as I described, a lot of
    attention is generally paid to the unquantifiable "quality" of the
    match.

					Topher

    .. sounds like fun actually...

    Yup -- I kinda' suspect that part of its popularity as an experimental
    procedure is because it *is* fun.

					Topher

    More interesting than trying to guess Zener card outcomes
    1,000,000 times in a row or trying to guess random numbers ?
    Not hard to believe almost anything would be fun in comparison.
    
    							todd

    It IS fun!  I've done it a few times at Esalen Institute, with George
    Leonard, as the "instigator".  He likes to try some of this "daring"
    stuff when I come to the group.  Yes, I have experienced a few "hits". 
    I've also experienced them when not "trying" to.
    
    A theoretical underpinning (paradigm) which, for me, provides an
    adequate frame for understanding this phenomenae is:
    
      o The Universe we are in consists of stuff we can see (a very small
    percentage of what there is. (The visible spectrum for Humans)
    
      o The largest part of the Universe consists of stuff we cannot see:
    Cosmic Rays, Neutrinos, X-Rays, etc.  This "stuff" is physical
    (Einstein showed that); yet, this kind of "stuff" goes through our
    bodies all of the time.  (If you have a very small radio or TV [small
    enough to fit in your hand] you can demonstrate this easily.) 
    Moreover, you already know radio and tv "waves" go through your
    dwelling and nearly all other buildings (except those lead shielded),
    or in "Faraday Cages".  Thus, we're always in and have always been in,
    and electromagnetic soup.  We are, furthermore, always "connected"
    within this soup.  To contact someone, one needs to access the right
    "frequency".  This part is fuzzy.  My guess is that the Right
    Hemisphere (in right-handed people) is the locus of the tuning and
    sending parts of our equipment, with communication across the Corpus
    Collosum to the speaking part of our brain, the Left Cerebral Cortex. 
    Holonomic Brain theory combined with David Bohm's speculation that we,
    apparently, inhabit a Holograpic (nomic) Universe. And as Karl Pribram
    said, when talking with Bohm, we have a Holonomic Brain interpreting a
    Holonomic Universe.  So Remote Viewing is one of the things we do.
    
    o In my Workshops I've experimented with this. It is better with
    groups, and the group needs to have done a lot of meditation together
    during a day (let's say).  I'd say an hours worth, at least, during an
    8-hour period.  It should be in a quiet place with few external noises
    and influences (telephones, radios, talk, trucks, airplanes).  Then set
    up any kind of experiment whose resolution requires remote viewing or
    "thought transference", and see what you get.  You know, have someone
    drive for 10 minutes, stop for 10 minutes, then have people draw, sing,
    the location--don't try to use linear, left-brained functions for this.
    My experience suggests Right Hemispheric functions.  Left-brained
    functions seem to act as inhibitors.  You can do your logical analysis
    later.
    
    Richard B

    That sounds like fun, Richard.  Why don't they pay people to do
    interesting stuff like that? :-)

    I do plan to be paid $$$$$
    
    Richard B

    re: .8,
    	Yes, sounds like interesting work.
    
    	Regarding your theoretical underpinning, Richard,
    	do you have any indications that there is actually
    	differential activity of the brain hemispheres, or
    	is that a speculation based on extrapolation from
    	the infamous commisurotomy experiments ?
    
    					todd

    .10
    
    Wow!  Are they taking resumes?  :-)
    
    Seriously Richard.... how do they know who should be on the team and
    who shouldn't?  It's not exactly something one can produce work samples
    of.. and be believed (that is).

    Todd:  This is speculation, partially based the Commisurotomy
    experiments by Bogen, Gazzaniga, etal.  I certainly was not using EEG's
    during my workshops.  Somebody's got to do the wild speculation--so,
    I've chosen myself.  :-)
    
    Mary:
    
    I didn't understand your question?  But, this work is both fun and
    enlightening, and it has taken a lot of work, study, money, books to
    gain the knowledge base for me to do it.  That's a good enough set of
    reasons to charge money.
    
    Richard B