Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I rather liked the Graham Phillips fishing rods.
Hi Michael,
I had assumed that the voice bookending the #20 recording is Andy’s and that the EVP is supposed to occur somewhere in the middle. However, that might not be the case. I’ll double-check that point and let you know.
As you say, interesting parallels between malfunctioning mobiles in your and Andy’s stories.
Cheers,
Simon
Hi Dan,
I think that you are trying to take a very black and white view of Questing and it might resist such neat classification.
Yuri describes well what psychic questing is in a relatively narrow sense – “using extra sensory perception to assist with investigative research.” under this definition I guess you could tally successes and failures although, as has been mentioned before, what you thought was a failure may well later turn out to have been a success (and vice versa). But in my (very limited) experience the quest operates simultaneously on a number of levels so that the “narrow” quest is mirrored by a wider, more general quest which has more to do with the quester’s inner life. Often it’s the transformation in the individual that is the more important facet although it’s uncanny how significant hits/finds in the narrow quest tend to reinforce a breakthrough in the wider quest. It’s almost as if you get some kind of physical affirmation of the spiritual advance.
But take “questing” at the most general level. All life (I believe) should be a metaphorical quest for the Holy Grail. What that actually means might vary from person to person but generally you follow your spiritual path where it leads you and your own inner life should mature accordingly. For me, anything that gets you out of your everyday routine is a quest of sorts.
If we also take “psychic” at its broadest to me “arising from the psyche/mind” then any whim, hunch, dream, desire or imagining counts as psychic.
So putting those two things together you have a very, very broad definition of what psychic questing entails. I would boil it down to the image of following your red thread. If you are seeking to follow your red thread to see where it leads next then you are indeed psychic questing. And as Yuri says it’s the journey that’s important not the destination.
So when you say: “can I assume that anything whatsoever that pops into my head before midnight might be a psychic message?” I would answer “yes” (this meets my “psychic” criterion above). Also when you ask “And if I suddenly decide that walking round the block clockwise thinking about white light would be rather jolly, have I accomplished something worthwhile?” I would answer “yes” even more strongly because (a) you’re now actually acting on your intuition (instead of ignoring the prompt and continuing to sit in a chair watching the TV); and (b) because in the much more narrow sense of psychic questing visualising white light is an effective and useful exercise.
Now still sticking to the most general sense of “psychic questing”, I would strongly question your attitude towards the two “unfortunates” you mention. The issue in this sense is not whether what they say is factually true but what they mean for your own quest. Do you need to examine your attitude towards schizoprenia/IQ/being interesting/being attractive?
Again, even if you take the most narrow sense of psychic questing, there are traditions that say that maybe the mad are those who have glimpsed the inner truth and been seared as a result. So maybe somewhere in the psychosis there are indeed valid mystic insights. (The Terence McKenna podcasts from the Psychedelic Salon, mentioned elsewhere on this site, add much more colour to this side of things than I ever could).
So in essence I think that the only failed quest is a quest not undertaken.
Still not sure if this will give you what you seem to want in terms of clear guidelines, though
supernaturalist wrote:It seems to me that Dea might have a brother or sister, the ancient god or goddess of disinformation, misdirection and downright porkies.I vote for Loki…
Julian Cope has now been removed from the speaker list (I don’t know if that is definite or if they just jumped the gun initially and there is still a possibility that he will be appearing).
Uh-oh! I hope I’m not going to get labelled as the guy who thought it was OK to fake an apport to kickstart a quest!
Mad Dan had it exactly right with his Merlin and the Holy Amethyst scenario. I’m talking about multiplying the potential number of states that reality can collpase into so that you stand a better chance of it collapsing into the state you want it to. This is subtly different to the idea of a placebo effect or altering the perceptions of the people on the quest. Did anyone read “Dancers at the End of Time” by Michael Moorcock? I’m thinking of a similar kind of reality manipulation although one which is more nebulous than that which Moorcock describes.
On the Merlin front, Mad Dan, where did Merlin tell you to look for the Holy Amethyst? Stop. Don’t think. What’s the first thing that comes into your mind?. It might be worth checking that out even though you think it’s a “bogus” lead. Did you read the brass casket part of the Andy Collins interview? They thought thet were making something up – yet what they (collectively) “concocted” was exactly what they found in reality.
Perceval – Leo. Likes: chocolate and early Christian history. Dsilikes: spiders and heights
Also I actually have three of the little critters now (4, 3 & 1). I’d be interested to hear about your “secret” site in Surrey though as there’s precious little that I can find of interest within about an hour’s drive. It’s just too populated.Mad Dan – you’ve spotted the flaw in my theory! Yes quantum theory only works at the quantum scale and doesn’t translate to the macro (yet). But it seems odd that if chance and probablility plays such as strong part with the building blocks of matter, it doesn’t somehow affect the structures built with those building blocks.
However, I do genuinely think that there is an interesting point about the creation of ambiguity. I’m not suggesting that every quest begins with a hoax but that there might be certain ways to start “undermining” reality, to make it more malleable – and that these ways must include the possibility that the whole thing is faked. So the master of ceremonies must be someone who is capable of setting the whole thing up (even if s/he doesn’t). It almost as if that if you are in a clean white laboratory with spotlights shining on the group and CCTV cameras everywhere you’ve given reality nowhere to go. It must follow the path that “science” would expect.
But if you are in a ruined church in semidarkness where maybe you’ve just done some ritual to tune the minds in another state of consciousness and the leader is someone who ay or may not be a charlatan (or is both!), then suddenly you’ve given reality some far more interesting (if still statistically unlikely) avenues to take. Again I’m not talking about perception as it’s clearly easy to get people to believe that something weird is happening. I’m talking about the fundamental particles actually being affected. E.g. suddenly there is more of this green stone here than anywhere else so – plop – it drops out of thin air at your feet.
Not sure if that makes sense – but then it is a theory of ambiguity
Quote:but the psychologists have been waiting to join the science club for years!Tell me about it. I did a degree in Psychology and they had such a chip on their shoulder about “being scientific” all the time. They didn’t seem to realise that the very idea of “science” to which they were trying to adhere was already out of date. Drove me mad.
Anyway, the point that I was making is more fundamental in that I’m talking about changing reality – not just one’s perception of it. The old Psychology joke used to go that “neurotic built castles in the air and psychotics lived in them.” So you may be convinced that your pet stone is talking to you (perception) but nobody else can hear it (reality) and that usually means that you’ll end up in a room with comfortable walls.
Now I know I’m being oversimplistic here and that the philosophical argument is that reality is nothing but consensual perception but if we stick for a moment to the narrow view of a hard and fixed set of physical realities that can be measured scientifically then what I’m suggesting is that with the necessary levels of ambiguity and manipulation, changes can be made even in this restrictive, empiric view. Sort of turning science against itself for once rather than combating it with mysticism (which I’m also in favour of by the way!)
OK Guys,
You’ve given me the opportunity to get on one of my hobbyhorses here – so watch out! I’ve thought about this a lot and am currently developing a theory of Quantum Ambiguity and can reveal the presence of a hitherto unknown subatomic particle called a Charlaton.
Here we go:
Most of you probably know about the double-slit experiment and all the theories that have resulted from this. If we focus on Quantum Superposition Theory, it claims that so long as we do not know what the state of a particular element of the particle is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously. If the quantity is then measured the state will be randomly collapsed into one of the values in the superposition.
It was the apparent absurdness of this that led Schrodinger to outline his thought experiment wherein a cat in a box can either be poisoned or not (because the poison is linked to an atomic particle that has a 50% chance of decaying or not decaying. If it decays the cat is poisoned, if not it isn’t). He was hoping to ridicule the idea with his application of the principle but sadly for him this is now used as the textbook illustration of just how the principle does work – as proven by hard math.
So it is the measurement itself that causes the state of the object to be limited to a single possibility (the so-called collapse of the wave function). My point in all of this, however, is that the scientists, having proved that the wave function collapses, went off and happily used this formula to build their description of the sub-atomic world. But what causes the wave function to collapse? How do we go from two (or more) potential states to just one? And which one becomes reality? To date science has almost ignored this question completely. The scientists don’t care so long as the maths work (which they absolutely do). I say “almost”. In fact Eugene Wigner, a Hungarian-born physicist, quantum theory expert and Nobel Laureate devoted time to it and believed that what causes the wave function to collapse is consciousness.
Now, if consciousness is the key to collapsing the wave function you start asking yourself: can we “artificially” increase the number of superpositioned states by increasing the ambiguity surrounding the object? Can we collapse the wave function by an act of will? Can we, in fact, collapse the state into a value of our choosing (not just a random state)? Daniel Pinchbeck puts this very well: “If our consciousness and therefore our intention is embedded in the structure of reality – as quantum physics, for instance, tells us – then how we focus our thoughts could catalyze certain possibilities and support more or less desirable outcomes.”
The trick here is that if I create ambiguity on a macro level by opening up many different possibilities and by decreasing the current probabilities (in practical terms, I could dim the lights, play spooky music, or otherwise the stifle the body’s usual perception modes) I can maybe increase the possibility of “psychic” occurrences. Switch the light back on and the wave function collapses (and if the ghost doesn’t disappear then your reality has just been permanently changed).
I quite like this notion and, taken a little bit further, I can envisage a world where you have skilled “reality technicians” who could surf the wave of uncertainty and, like skilled lumberjacks, cause reality to fall in a particular way (ensuring their version of reality) or simply keep the wave uncollapsed to again suit their purpose.
However such reality-jacks would probably have to be charlatans. To create the largest amount of ambiguity there must be the possibility that they are simply bluffing, that, in a questing analogy, they simply went into the field an hour earlier and buried the object that the questers will subsequently “find”. Is it real/is it not real? The more ambiguity we can create, the more possibility that genuinely strange things will pop into reality.
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for this info. I’ll see if I can convince our team to track down the headless St. Clair statue although it may still be a bit far for the younger members (I checked on the AA website and they reckon it’s 2.5 hours each way). But even if I don’t manage it this time it sounds like there’s plenty around the Gisors/St Clair-sur-Epte that warrants checking out.
Cheers for this,
Simon
I’ll wait a while to see if this really is a “done deal” but if this turns out to be correct it appears that the Green Stone Fund was unsuccessful and all monies will be returned forthwith. Many thanks to all those who so generously supported the bid. Maybe next time…
And here is Andrew’s own reply:
“My position regarding the imminent sale of the Green Stone is clear, and I will not repeat it.
As regards the assertion that I have made no mention of Marion’s sad demise on my site, the answer is simple. I learnt about the sale of the Green Stone just four days after her funeral, before I had a chance to do anything on the website, which is only updated periodically, due to heavy work load. Since then my usual hectic schedule and book deadlines have been strained to the limit by this unpredicted twist of affairs. So I have decided not to say anything at all until after the sale, and then I will write up the whole matter in one go.
I am, of course, very saddened by Marion’s death, even though we had not spoken for over 20 years. I will deal with it in my own way in my own time.
On the subject of the future of the Green Stone, this is outlined in my previous statement. This object is not a toy to play with, it is a symbol of a series of events which Graham Phillips and I unwittingly initiated back in 1979. It was given to Marion as custodian, because at the time our own lives were less than settled. She was handed the casket much later, simply because she was touring the world still promoting the Green Stone story with the object itself, and so it was better that the two items remained together. Graham and I were by now onto other things, and so had no qualms about this taking place.
If, and only if, myself and my close friends are successful in the bid to purchase the Green Stone, then it will appear at future events. Yes, it will be used magically, but only with the express permission of all the members of the inner core, whose names will be made available in due course. They are perhaps wiser than me, and will not allow it to be used for any old action, I assure you.
On the subject of me being misled in the past by psychic guides such as ‘Aleister Crowley’, this is a matter of debate. Just because a society might have classed a person ‘evil’ by its own reckoning in an era barely free of Puritanism, does not condemn a soul to eternal damnation, whatever you might think of the way a person lived their life.
Personally, I found him quite a spunky guide to deal with, better than your usual ‘Silver Feather’ or ‘Grey Cloud’ Indian guides so stereotypical of the spiritualist movement. Guides should be provocative, stimulating and believable.
That Marion warned me back in 1979 against a psychic woman named Helen who also had Crowley as a spirit guide tells you more about people’s intrigues and prejudices than it does true psychic information. This said, if I had not taken notice of what Marion had to say at the time, then the Green Stone story would never have occurred, an eerie thought, really.
On the other hand, if it is lost to whoever, then this truly will be a disaster, of this I am certain.
So please ignore any swipes at me, and think of the stone itself, and how you can play some role in saving it from probable oblivion. Surely this should be everyone’s concern at the moment.
Happy questing,
Andrew Collins”
Hi Holly,
I’m glad that you decided to drop by and post your views the broader the spectrum of views on any topic the better. I hope that as you read through the forums you will see that nothing has been censored at all and healthy debate is actively promoted.
So to tackle a few of the points you raise:
1. “This forum is mainly one for friends and supporters of Mr Collins”. I’m not sure how true this is although it is a criticism that has been raised before. Certainly this site was designed to represent the Questing community in its widest sense. Very few of the posts talk about Andrew or his work directly – most relate to observations/questions of the individual posters.
In the current debate about the Green Stone he has come back into the limelight but in fairness to the man I was the one who introduced him to the debate. Since then we have had a rather scathing attack from johnny that made some highly dubious criticisms of a very personal nature and people have reacted to these with the appropriate distaste.
Of the frequent posters, Yuri is perhaps the only one who is a “friend” of Andrew’s but I believe that even he has a fairly balanced view of Andrew and is certainly not putting him up on some pedastal. However, the fact that so many of the posters do class themselves (at least on this occasion) as supporters of Andrew shows that he is held in high regard within the community. I think everyone would agree that, primarily through the annual QuestCons, he is the person who has put the most effort into establishing a Psychic Questing community in the first place. So such a bias is only to be expected. I believe you would find that if somebody attacked, say, Graham Phillips, Alex Langstone or any other researcher who is obviously only doing their best to bring their findings to the wider world, there would be an equally vociferous reaction.
2. “Some viable and important criticism has been made – simply to dismiss this is surely not a good way to debate the issue.” I would argue that most of johnny’s criticisms were neither viable nor important but petulant and needlessly insulting. Surely his position is completely undermined when he appears to speak on behalf of Gaynor (and makes some very nasty insinuations about her mother’s untimely death) and then Gaynor’s own husband refutes this and smacks him down. I come back to the point I made above, healthy criticism is welcomed on this site, personal insults with no substance to them are not.
3. “debate about who is really worthy of having such a relic”. This is a totally fair point albeit reasonably academic as the relic is being sold by private auction. I have no problem if folk want to argue about who, in an ideal world should be the keeper of the Stone. Again I would be saddened to see it descend to a level of personal attacks (which is the danger when you start comparing “worthiness”).
In the specific instance that has been raised – that Andrew is unworthy because he has used the spirit of Aleister Crowley – I again think this is a totally fair point for discussion and although Yuri used a light-hearted style to do so I think he tackled this issue head-on and didn’t dismiss it lightly.
In this instance I would personally disagree with several of the other posters in that I believe Crowley was a thoroughly bad egg when on the planet and I would be highly suspicious of any dealings with him in the spirit world. But I equally believe that we can’t totally block out our shadow side so if the crowley guide was Andrew’s way of coming to terms with his own shadow then maybe that’s ok.
I guess the question I would ask is who would you consider more worthy and why?
So in summary this website is simply a mirror of the views of those who post here. If you want different views or material then you have done exactly the right thing by starting the counter-argument yourself! Let’s hear some more.
- Simon
Me too! Sounds great. Maybe whoever finishes it first can post a review.
Hmmm – maybe I should take this one back as it seems the Quest won’t let me go
I’m currently reading Labyrinth by Kate Mosse which is a “Da Vinci Code”-esque novel (although arguably better than TDVC) revolving around the Cathars. At one point in the book it refers to a Cathar version of The Gospel of John, of which a copy remains in some French University (I don’t have the book with me right now and I can’t recall exactly which one).
Anyway I was curious to see if this was actually the case as I hadn’t heard of this Cathar version before. From what I can see after some searching on the net, although such a Gospel was known to have existed there are no copies of it extant.
However, while searching for this red herring I found an article by a Scottish-based researcher which plunged me straight back to the “Lost Writings” quest and even contained much excellent research material on the parent “creation of a new church” quest (this is what’s referred to by the title of joa Bolenda’s book of visions “So That You May Be One”).
The site is here: [url:b6traajr]http://www.sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk/holyland/johannine.htm[/url] and is invaluable for anyone (other than me!) wishing to pursue this quest.
