redcairo

Those would be great on the walls. I especially like the yinyang, the sort of impressionist effect. RC

Well yeah, and where's Putin did I miss it. But that's the point really; even THAT is not at all complex enough and that's one country at one point in time. How will anybody know that all the major countries are at war together? Russia and the USA can be at war in 42 places around the globe, but because we haven't officially declared it on each other, it doesn't exist. RC

Oh come on. The guy is hilarious! It's a PERFECT response to "what's your impression of ___" if you don't want to give a political answer! Assume the best. Really, if there is any human being on this planet who deserves we at least give the benefit of the doubt, surely it's that guy. RC

Perhaps WWIII is already in progress, it's simply that it's in the early phases. It's not official yet. In fact, it's possible that one reason it's not more obvious is because rather than like in the past, having two of the most powerful countries fighting each other, is complicated hugely by the fact that we're fighting each other {A} indirectly, and {B} sometimes we are on the same side and sometime we SAY we are on the same side but aren't, and {C} there's more than two big enough to be Really Scary now, and it's freaking ridiculous trying to figure out WTH is actually going on. Here's a flowchart someone tried on sorting Syria's mess -- of course there are many versions of this, and now multiply this over the middle east at large. It's so complex we'll probably be late to our own war because we'll miss the memo in all the chaos. RC

One thing the Ion Effect author said that I found interesting. He said in Europe, various cultural sayings -- such as the effect of certain winds on accidents, health, psychology etc. -- have such a long history with the people, that they aren't really questioned that much. Sure, maybe it's not 100% or for everyone or all the time, nobody said it was, but it's just a given that this is a thing, because it's always been. So if they do science, it might start with: what might be causing this? But in the USA, the culture is incredibly new compared to most the rest of the world, and what lineage we have is ignored or unknown or dismissed (the Native lore), that even such things we ourselves have, the first question science asks is instead: can we prove it's even real? And that comes first. But some things cannot be tested properly in science; you can't bring in the south winds in a science lab, with all the myriad factors and time and so on. And, even if you can demonstrate the south winds had some effect on some percentage of people, that doesn't mean there aren't god-knows-how-many compounding and confounding factors that either mitigate it or make it worse -- and these do not mean there isn't something real going on but they do probably mean that without a really significant amount of funding over a decent period of time, trying to tease that out enough to demonstrate something's reality to the scientists in the USA is probably never going to happen. There's apparently a lot of research (will look into the selected bibliography) but the bottom line is that everything from violent crime to suicide to car accidents shows a very significant correlation; but it's not always as-obvious, for example the strongest wave may be a couple days before the winds arrive -- as if the dynamic ion situation arrives first, and that plus the 'change' from one state to another is powerful. But in practice of course, you need a lot of documentation to get to the point of that making sense, since until then, it just starts sounding as arbitrary as biorythyms. Anyway I thought the comment about research between Europe and the US was very interesting. RC

Predicting Indexes: 34 months of back testing the SuperForce Algorithm with the AMEX, DOW, NASDAQ, Russell 2000, NYSE, S&P and Philadelphia Major Indexes http://www.superforce.com/email-releases/Indexes.htm Found that link on the linked superforce site, seemed to focus on the markets index vs. the pos/neg ions ratio as predictive. Randomer thanks for the post outlining what to look for in NI Gens, and the post of links as well. I've been reading this book that Cheya ref'd -- The Ion Effect -- and I'm finding it really fascinating. I'll be back another time to talk some about that... RC

Great article, thanks! I've not done well sleeping the last 10 days or so. Hope it's not related to the NI gen as I like having it in my small room. Surely I can adapt around it, even if so... RC

Oh a follow up: 1. http://www.envirohealthtech.com/airarticles.htm I'm curious about its positive comments on ozone. Wasn't it being said that was not healthy? 2. I hadn't considered it until I saw it mentioned, but since I put the NI gen in my little room I have used my window unit air conditioner -- which I usually just use the 'fan only' to bring in outside air -- vastly less. I usually have it on literally all the time, nearly 24/7 unless it's making me cold, because my room feels SO "stuffy." I've barely used it in a week. I was just thinking about that last night and kind of wondering why. But maybe it just "feels less stuffy" (obviously it does, or I'd be using it more) and that is an NI gen side effect I wasn't aware of until now. RC

Interesting stuff guys. I would never have known that something like paint could make a difference! Clearly there's decent tech knowledge behind what on the surface later might seem like something simple. The one I put over the litterbox area does seem to be helping. It's not enough at the time before the maid comes (when usage and time-waiting-for-cleaning have been accruing) but I feel sure that the room is much improved by this. I am not sure about the one in my bedroom (where I also work and usually sit, still overly sedentary for medical reasons), simply because I have too many variables going on with my body to know what to credit when anything changes. Since I bored you guys previously with the whole insane-edema-problem I've had leading up to and after my heart surgery, I thought I would mention that I went on a ketogenic eating plan on Sep 9th, and today is a week of it. And since the day after I began it, I've been slowly losing edema. It's the first thing that has worked at all. I do expect it to do fine with losing ordinary fat, also. I lost 170# on that approach many years ago ('06, some '07). Didn't regain until gradually starting early 2013, I got about 50# of it back. So I figure I should lose that fat just because I should, and maybe the typical water drop of keto would help. It does seem to. I hope it continues but I'm not sure if it's the temporary drop from just not needing it for processing carbs, or if it's just genuinely helping with the edema itself. Even that is certainly making me feel better though, physically and otherwise. * I have a couple more questions about NI gen stuff. 1. Why limit it? Why not have 15 of them in a small room? How do you measure 'how much' is good vs. bad (is there a bad?)). 2. Are window air conditioners, I mean when on 'cool' not just on pulling air from outside, generating ions due to the airflow, and then 'positive' ions due to the refrigeration somehow? 3. Do other 'atomic collision' actions result in ion generation such as burning incense for example? 4. I see that biologicals would get negative ions, if generated, by breathing. And I do realize our body 'trades atoms' with stuff around us all the time. But do ions 'penetrate' soft bodies including things not biological, such as things botanical? RC

Randomer: thanks so much for the offer. I will let you know in the future. Andrei: thanks for the useful advice, appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. RC

That's so incredibly kind of you! Thank you!! But I already bought one (the 2nd one I listed) and it's sitting on the cat shelf about eight feet from me in my ~11x11 room where at the moment I'm forced to spend most my time. (I do run a window unit 'fan' in for fresh air and air-flow when the door is open.) I've had it on for a couple days now, but I have so much going on and constantly changing with my health and stuff I do related to it, I can't say whether or not it's helping or if it is, whether that's the thing that's doing it. I should get that book I ordered (thanks to the link/ref above) today I hope! Have been eager to find more on the topic online but not having much luck -- most of what I find is generic and for sales. I went back on a ketogenic diet yesterday. Did that about a decade ago, lost a ton of fat and kept it off for many years -- regained about half of it over the last couple years of near immobility, low O2 etc. I'm sure my body could use getting rid of the extra fat, but I'm doing it in the hopes it helps me drop some water weight. That's usually the first result of dropping carbs, I find. I'd have done this sooner, but the liver is the body's healer and detoxer and I had open heart surgery July 1 so I kinda figured I should give it a couple months at least to work on important stuff before I started making massive ketone-generation (and "process all this crap that used to be in fat storage cells") demands on it. I wouldn't do it now, just to spare it some more time, except that I'm so desperate for exercise even just for heart healing, and need to lose some edema to make it possible. This'll be a nearly spiritual test. Before, I got everything out of my house that wasn't "real food" and low in sugar/carbs. Now, my house is filled with delicious fast easy horrible things I can't eat, but my daughter and her boyfriend do. I had to design intermittant fasting into the plan just to reduce the wandering-in-the-kitchen iterations of temptation LOL. Once the body keto adapts it's no big deal, but until then and especially a week in, even the sugar in green veggies starts seeming orgasmic, it's funny but pitiful. A day in and already I have the same problem I always do with that plan -- I can't freaking eat enough. I've been somewhat anorexic my whole adult life (lipedemics are infamous for that, might be an overcompensation, or maybe a leptin issue), and since the heart issue meant I wasn't getting up to 70% of the oxygen and nutrients in blood to my body for many years that's the ultimate starvation... I need 'dense nutrition.' But just try eating keto and getting enough calories, short of living on bacon-mayo-avo with butter on it or something. Critics say it isn't low-carb that works, merely that people naturally eat fewer calories that way and are still full. Yep usually so... sounds like an idea that works for what most people want, then! We'll see how the NI generator, the little EM textile with the freq's I was given, a range of supplements including those suggested to me internally, some silly sitting on edge of bed lifting dumbbells sized for a 5 year old, and eating Keto/IF works. I guess if nothing else the discipline to do it all consistently will be worth the effort. Oh I wanted to mention I put the other NI gen I bought on the edge of a shelf that nearly overlooks two cat litter boxes with lids. I'm not in that room often right now but I thought it would be interesting to see if there was any difference in smell, if NI's were knocking heavy particles out of the air. Has there been any research on NI related to plants or animals? RC

Long ago I was reading stuff from this agricultural chemist turned biochemist about the food we eat. Now, as advance warning, this guy was -- and sort of hilariously, too -- a bit of a wingnut. He was a preacher who got asked to leave by more than one church for being too metaphysical. He ended up working with human health and, lacking the proper terminology for about a zillion things, simply used terms the way he wanted them, which of course made anybody traditionally educated and looking into his stuff either think he was a lunatic or just lose their minds trying to wrap around it. As if all this wasn't bad enough, he was constantly under attack from official medical groups who back then were not at all against literally killing people and massive bribes to judges, and several assassination attempts failed. (When he did finally die, he was getting older and it was believed to be from complications from shrapnel, from WWII, that could never be dug out of him.) But all that aside. He had what I felt was an utterly fascinating paradigm. He had begun an agri chem guy but said that (even then in the 40s I think it was) he had to hunt down and buy teaching from experts who knew, after schooling, because schooling was run by government and a lot of it was bunk and owned (back then in the "pwned" sense, now it's literally) by chemical companies. He didn't start getting into medical stuff until a friend/neighbor's young boy had a problem nobody could solve. Anyway, this guy is the one who actually first invented hair analysis, as ash analysis (such as being able to tell you how many people or animals, and a little detail, were killed in a fire where nothing is left but ash), oh and also the Brix Refractometer or at least I think... or maybe it was evaluation based on the underlying sugar/carb property of agri... he was a smart guy. To a great degree officially stamped out of anything 'official' you'll read though since he was completely opposed to every 'official' institution (esp. the AMA, FDA, USDA, etc. despite he worked with the latter, with great complaint, for a long time) and as his primary followers have seemed to be vocal evangelist fundamental christians, that hasn't improved anything as you might imagine. He went on and on about anions and cations. He insisted that technically we did not get our energy from nutrients from food but rather, that the anions/cations of our food "interacted with" the anions/cations of our digestive system and that this "interaction" -- the dynamic -- is what gave us "energy." He also had this whole model about how allegedly the liver actually creates every... cell, but I think it's not 100% physical like you already-see-it-under-the-scope, "out of itself" -- of what it has stored or can call in from various parts of the body -- and sends it to the part of the body that needs the new cell, which is in the process (calling for it) and then "divides" with the liver's input basically staffing this doubling in components. (I found that an interesting sync to some of the ancient legends e.g. of the guy getting a piece of his liver eaten every day, but it was 'for' the world.) He had a ton of knowledge "in his head" and not shared with others, which formed a lot of his ability for amazing diagnostics. I didn't know until I read some of his stuff that there were so many different kinds of calcium, and that each kind has different effects, and that you can actually have too much of one kind and be stockpiling it painfully in joints (well esp. if deficient in the nutrients that better direct it) while suffering from lack of calcium in other ways for not having other forms of it. I may be remembering wrong as my familiarity was in passing years ago and it turns out my body wasn't getting very much oxygen or nutrients from my blood for many years, so I am suspicious of my memory of everything. I do have some write-up notes I posted eons ago for some friends here for anybody interested. http://www.palyne.com/carey-reams-rbti/carey-reams-rtbi-pjnotes1.html Anyway, Reams was all about the interplay of anions/cations as it applied to nutrition which I thought was novel. I find the concept of this interesting because in my meditation work (sort of jungian-ish active imaginational-ish -- more an individual process led by identities on my inside, than anything I've learned from the outside), there are a couple of basics... one is that you "seduce it, don't force it," because everything is about 'the relationship of geometries' as I feel it in my gut. The other is that there's no such thing as me-here and that-there because all I ever can perceive is the dynamic interplay between what-I-think-is-me and what-I-think-is-other. So if I see a table, or John, what I'm really seeing is the ever-happening-"event" of the interplay between the energy of me and the energy of the table or john. Obviously if I change me, the dynamic event, the relationship, changes, hence one's ability to change reality intentionally. In accordance with Will as some would say... if you can "bother getting around to it" as I would say, once the psychology realizes the power we have to do so. But so... maybe it is ever thus. That our nutrients and our breath (Reams believed we got a good chunk of energy just from breathing, which is progressive when you consider he was not eastern in approach) and our spirit and other relationships are not about the creative hermitcrab-shells we see as the physical mass part, but the dance of the ions underneath. *** Separate: Don't worry about liability in this case, but thank you. I've been to the doc very recently. My heart problem was fixed (replaced a wrongly-shaped major valve I was born with) so although I'll be in healing mode esp. for the next year that's ok. The other issue is a sort of dysplasia of adipose there is no known solution to (affects over 10% of women to varying degrees but rather extremely in mine. Genetically associated). My kidney tests just taken come out fine. In fact the heart surgeon said that aside from the valve he was replacing, which was a birth issue, and aside from the 'lipedema' which nobody's expected to fix, that I was really healthy. Which is funny because you don't hear of large older women in a cardiac ward being 'really healthy' very often I'll bet. The only problem, aside from side-effects of lipedema of course, is that due to a few years of undiagnosed heart-valve massive leakage, and open heart surgery where they pour a ton more fluids into you, and it takes some time for the body to adapt to the heart's power so solution isn't instant... I have liquid edema too now. Docs say it should go away gradually, but they expected sooner it's obvious. There's a LOT of it, and combined with the lipedema it literally makes it very difficult to stand, and walk, let alone exercise for real. And I NEED to exercise for the sake of my new heart valve, never mind the edema, so basically the problem is preventing me getting to the solution that would solve it, a horrid catch 22. It's imprisoning mobility-wise which is a nightmare, and a long-term one for me, so I'm sure this is some major energetic thing I need to work on spiritually too of course, but probably being so big and in my face, it's completely invisible to me... My body did give me SOME info, which I am implementing now (I was too trashed to do much besides keep breathing, barely, and work via laptop for a living, barely, till I had the surgery recently). One was nutrients: Sulfur and Quercetin. My inner-identities worked very hard to get me this message, the first in a deep male voice, and the second with my Aeons holding up three cards with letters on them, spelling que-rce-tin, that was funny. I happened to put them in search related to cell membrane, after a vision suggested this was the underlying problem of lipedema to me, and turns out they both have research suggesting they're a big deal for that. Who knew! Well I am only just beginning that now. The second was frequency: long ago I had put together something we called a 'Carmi blanket' on the FreX yahoo list (basically this is where you set a frequency generator, and it puts forth to a radio receiver [probably modern iphone could do this now], which puts out to the power cord of an electric heating pad. So instead of plugging the heating pad into the wall (Note: it does not heat, obviously, this way) you're plugging it into whatever 'frequency' you're running. (Being a good documentarian, I did write down what I was doing at the time, found at http://diy-em.blogspot.com/2013/09/carmi-blanket-em-tech.html for anyone interested.) Anyway I was thinking about it one night driving home, and my Aeons pushed into my dream and showed me a new one that was all about 'the legs' (what I was focused on) (this for adipose-edema from Lipedema, not liquid heart-edema mind you), and gave me the specific frequencies: 22Hz mostly; with some 23-25Hz also, and some 262Hz 'for protection.' Now I have no idea what really works in that category for any given thing, but if your subconscious is interrupting your dreams to give you answers that specific I figure they're worth paying attention to. So as soon as I find the bloody thing (my house looks like a hoarder lives here as I have not been mobile to care for it beyond hiring someone to clean for a couple years) I will do that too. My new hobby for the next year is called "getting rid of all the stuff in my house." Here's hoping it's a feng shui analogue to getting rid of all the stuff I don't want in my body, too. :-) RC

I just had a funny experience, where I was listening to somewhere in the middle of Canon Rock by Sungha Jung in another tab and I was watching the i Ching icon of the post above change in time to the music, while my brain tried to wrap around how the music could be making my perception DO that. Then I realized it wasn't just my perception... it was an animated GIF. hahaha! OK so I think I got the answer to my question: the negative ions are created FROM the air WHERE they are created, hence they will be of a composition to match the atoms of the air used. That makes sense. I have an issue of severe imbalance in my body currently -- two separate medical conditions (both came with birth) -- which combined with age and a recent surgery for one of them (heart), result in a serious edema problem. I take diuretics which are not enough. Andrei would you have any suggestions for something that might reduce something like that? I wonder how mucking about with the kidney meridians in the feet might affect that. Maybe I'd make it worse instead of better... RC

Thank you. Question: how do you know it's creating oxygen ions instead of say, copper ions? Is an ion an ion? Is that why, say, oxidation/rust can happen? Because electronics are, ah, agnostic about the mass they make up, hence can be traded?? Also: ironically I never thought of NI gens when writing this blog post about, of all things, the electron state of the human body. http://hypernutrient.blogspot.com/2013/11/szent-gyorgyi-and-dragon.html That blog is mostly just a place to put a couple useful articles on vitamin C, an overview http://hypernutrient.blogspot.com/2013/11/vitamin-c-liposomal-and-more-casual.html and a ref to Cathcart's main tolerance study (though the paper is decently summarized in the image I made based on his paper images, abstract etc., here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U3Ty_sy2VAQ/Uo3W6ki7HQI/AAAAAAAAAWw/W9WCg_Juthg/s1600/cathcart-ascorbic-bowel-tolerance-summary.png And I have off and on been reading about this concept of getting electrons not just through intake like food but of course, air, light/color/sound/etc. In theory we ought to be able to get a sort of atomic precursor to vitamin C through the radio... done right. That's sort of a newish idea for me, although some inspiration from the inner world essentially told me that some time ago (I'm slow to change). Anyway, the NI gens seem like a fascinating thing. Thanks for your info on this. RC

Thank you! It's on order. :-)

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I tried the second one -- still working on how/where to put it though. It's got a couple wires coming from it, and a separate little thing (a wire?) that says 'fragile glass' in the box. Haven't a clue what to do with it and am hoping there's instructions in the bottom. I put it back on the table as I was busy, will look again later. I was looking for some books/docs on negative ions. Most cost money (I confess I am spoiled with free books). I have a couple of questions, if you have time. 1. For something with "a lot of research," where is that research? By this I mean, I went to pubmed, but my search strings were insufficient. Can you tell me some place and key terms I could use to find reference to this research? 2. When an NI generator creates "ions" -- which wiki says are 'atoms or molecules' (their... neutrons? anions? cations? I'm confused), what are we generating? I mean for example, an atom might be a copper atom. As opposed to a helium atom. But every atom is "something." What are these? I think maybe I fundamentally misunderstand something. Thanks very much, RC

I don't know the official rules of whatever religious discipline is in focus. So I can't speak to that. But as a casual self-motivated western mystic of sorts, I can give my perspective on the question. This is just from a "practical" plus experience (both good and bad) angle, not because anybody is telling me so or it's written somewhere, as I don't follow any specific path. (I use a variety of models as tools, off and on, when I feel like it, but that's all.) * Energy has no boundaries, and even speaking or writing it for others exposes and complicates it: the moment anybody else is part of something, you now have your own stuff plus theirs too, intertwined with it. I find often it's best to keep things "close to the vest" as they say and let it be something between you and the divine and the reality you project/interact with. I think this is especially important if whatever you are working on has certain goals, whether they are goals that make a change in you or your habits, or goals such as in business for example where 'success' is a measuring factor. Basically all change is resisted. It's enough work dealing with our own resistance. You don't need to energetically deal with others' too. * Information has different 'time' to development inside us. Let us say you have an experience one evening. Maybe it is something a sensei said, or maybe it is a dream or a meditative experience you had. You will absorb that, unfurl a lot more of it, integrate it, at varying speeds. Just because you understand the topography of it the next morning doesn't mean that the whole thing has worked itself out with you yet. So what you share fairly soon is inherently going to make it something it's not, as if forcing this into verbal communication is actually going to force you to take all that energy, whatever incomplete degree of development it might be, and toss it into cement as fast as you can, into a fixed this-means-that form of logical words. I feel this can interfere with the development within you, and with your own understanding, which may "attempt to come to conclusions and resolution" before things are ready. * Energy is a resource and if you talk out something you may be releasing some of it in that way, rather than keeping it for concrete action or intent. So 1) I don't entangle other peoples' energy, intent or resistance with mine; 2) I give the experiences time to develop and integrate within me, before articulating them, and 3) I focus the energy for effort-X into X and not into talking-about-X. But on the other hand.... Once you have something worked out somewhat in your head, it can be good to talk with someone about your ideas, since articulating them may actually cause you to bring the energy into focus, into shape, and that can be good. They may actually contribute to, not harm or merely 'complicate', your energetic direction and path of success. Bringing your emotion into your intent can make a powerful difference, and often it's sharing with someone that brings forth more of that emotion, and enthusiasm, and so on. Not to mention... Nearly every opportunity I have had manifest in my life came through other people. If I had never talked to them about things I was doing, or interested in doing, I would have had no close relationships about topics that really touched me, and I would not have ended up with the many generous gifts -- of time, self, love and sometimes money or other material assistance, that such interactions brought. Also: There is a thing... I don't know a name for it. But basically it happens when you articulate something to someone else and they hear you; and you know they hear you; it's like a... like a circuit connecting. Win Wenger talks about this but others have as well. It makes a difference in the brain. Most people have to actually talk to a person to do this. Some people, say some inner advisors to me once, can do it in writing if they have a very high awareness of and connection to people in the future reading it, as they do so. I think sometimes that can be a good thing -- perhaps it depends on the situation. Lastly, there are other reasons for recording your experience, which you may or may not choose to share with others, at least at that time. For example, when I'm working on stuff that is new to me, I have severe memory problems. I don't just mean that I can do a meditation, write it down in detail, and then forget I did it. I reread what I wrote and it's still new. I reread what I wrote for the 8th time eventually, knowing that I not only had the experience, and wrote it down, and read it 7 times before, and it is still totally new to me. And then finally I break through whatever kind of memory or denial issues are going on and I start remembering, a little better all the time, until eventually I remember all those experiences, and I remember the new ones also, and it's ok. But if I didn't record them and constantly re-expose myself to them they would be gone to me. And as a secondary but related thing to the above, for me, documenting my inner life is a great deal of how I validate my experiences, which I'm otherwise prone to forget in denial or dismiss in invalidation if it's not logical. I often intellectually see that I am avoiding a certain topic or energy by the fact that I'm not getting around to recording it. But usually if I record it, I need to share it with at least one person, it forces me to own up to it in a way. These elements are really a completely different consideration than just the "keep the energy close" for so many good reasons that I was talking about at the top. I have meditations where I'm told not to record certain parts or that afternoon, it's simply not appropriate to share (and these are not anything offbeat, they seem like just another meditation as far as their content, context or experience goes) so I don't, but I assume there is some decent reason my innerself-aspects are telling me that. As far as sharing certain goal-oriented things in particular, all I can say is that I prefer to share things with people who already have the energy in place for what I am doing or feeling. For example if I am working on something for business I would prefer to talk to someone who is successful in business and who expects and welcomes me to be, prior to me talking to anybody about it who may be much closer to me, but who is not evidencing that kind of energy, since I feel the first person might be energetically helpful to me even if nearly a stranger, while the second person might complicate or burden my chance at success no matter how much we love each other. If the topic is more like spiritual development, it's the same theory for me, I would ideally only talk with people who already accept the paradigms I'm working on learning to accept, who already embody the energy I'm working on integrating and embodying. Otherwise I feel like a marathon runner and that person I love but who isn't really there with me spiritually just took off their heavy yoke of doubt and confusion and resistance and dropped it around my neck, and now I have to get down the path for me AND them, because I involved them in it. So... who I share with is selective and what I share -- and when -- is selective. But unless I have a driving need for the documentation, I think it's best to err on the side of quiet. :-) RC

Nine months after I started practicing TM, I easily made the following changes: I quit deliberately thinking ... I became a vegetarian, I quit smoking, quit drinking, stopped pacing around my house as a way of dealing with stress, stopped driving my car around town at night as an escape, quit consuming caffeine, gave up all forms of sexual pleasure (I wouldn't even look at women sexually), changed my sleeping habits, stopped cussing, started keeping my room clean, and stopped listening to the radio Good God! I'll be certain to avoid TM at all costs! I'm teasing. I trained in TM, circa... 1991 I think it was. The practice seemed fine. The induction process is ridiculous, it's more religious than religions, more litigious-threat than scientology (ok maybe nothing trumps them) and the social group is a cult, but oh well, so are most all religions I suppose. At least they're nice to each other. Mostly. I worked closely with a few people very into this and their extended network, as our biz had transferred from the Fairfield IA area and I ended up doing a number of independent things (point of sale setup and LANs and stuff, back in the days when it was all a bit novel) for some Ayurvedic clinic services and so on. There's certainly a lovely focus on health, and on what the Hawai'ians might call the Ku, and sitting quietly and learning to relax and still your mind is a healthy thing for anybody I'm pretty sure. I had a lovely session with a jyotish during that era as I recall. And one of the funniest moments ever. He spoke no english. His translator seemed decent. But at one point after a long silence of staring and pacing, like something intense or important, he bursts out with this rather impassioned speech that went on and on. I was expecting something truly epic by the time it was over. Then he and I both looked at the translator, who looked like a deer caught in headlights. Literally his mouth opened and nothing came out a few times, and then he finally stuttered, "You... you.... are a good -- ah... -- taxpayer!" I looked at him, and he looked at me and then at the Jyotish, and the jyotish and I looked at each other, and then the three of us just cracked up and laughed like crazy. I laughed so hard for some reason that this probably did my well-being more good than a real translation would have. :-) I seem to vaguely recall either reading, or hearing about a friend reading (sorry. Long time ago) a book that talked about some of the research done on TM as a practice. It basically said a whole list of very positive things for the practice. But it did point out that also, the mantra could probably be 'roast beef' and work the same, that part of it wasn't relevant to the results at all. I wasn't fond of the mental model the locals had that 'spacing out' was "transcending." Maybe it is but in my next life I hope enlightenment is more entertaining. That spacing or time-splicing is what I get when I am new to a certain level of energy such as the other meditations I do, but as I adapt and get more competent with it, that goes away and I start being more conscious and remembering better, rather than feeling like a few seconds passed in what turned out to be a long time. I used to get that in self-hypnosis but that was mostly if I let myself sit in deep state without direction. I can't say it improved my health since I learned it just as I was going into an insane work-hours high-stress cycle which happened to be just after a problematic kundalini experience that did some damage (which = "reality weirdness") and potentially a couple of other significant interferences in any hope for a 'normal' life. But it was a good practice and perhaps I'd have been a lot worse off without it. IMO anything that messes with your sex drive is not a positive no matter what is sold to recommend it. You don't have to be acting sexually to have a good sex drive. In human biology, sex drives are healthy. But some forms of vegetarianism can kill it pretty well, I recall reading that several of the historical people who were religiously anti-sex and wanted to tamp it down in everyone especially men pushed grains and not meats partly for that purpose (Kellogg and Graham for example). Yes, the men were more passive and that was considered a good thing. I don't consider it so, but that is just one of those everyone has a different perspective things I guess. I had been a self-hypnosis enthusiast for many years at that point, so sitting down, centering, and dropping into what amounts to trance (one way or another, ends the same) was already pretty easy for me. But doing it just-to-do-it without any specific accomplish-this or work-on-this as part of the exercise was new. Getting over the rush to 'do' and just 'be' was actually a bit of work. No matter what one calls it or why one does it, I think for anybody, learning to sit down and STFU is probably a very healthy thing on its own merits. I should do more of that and I'd probably do less swearing in acronyms. :-) RC

I read A Course in Miracles a long time ago. I nearly didn't because it's a channeled work allegedly and I had a really powerful bias about all things in that category. Jane Roberts singlehandedly redeemed that entire topic for me. Not, unfortunately, most of its authors. :-) But "intuitive writing" on its own (around since the dawn of time) is ok -- a blend of the source the communicator though. So obviously its value depends a lot on the person writing, too. ACiM is not a bad thing at all. It's just one specific way of presenting a rather fundamental paradigm-set which anybody especially in the Western world tends to have trouble wrapping their head around. No worries. You'll just be a mystic with ACiM, not a Moonie. :-) OK now to your point. You have a tomato. You give it to Jack. Now Jack has a tomato and you don't have a tomato. I'll not argue the potential quantum-physics trivia about how technically nobody has a tomato so all you really traded was an idea attached to some emergent-property-as-energy-particles because hey, in the experiential "focus-reality" world, Jack has your tomato and no amount of philosophy is going to change that. :-) But things which work in the "logical" world of mind are often non-sequiturs internally and vice-versa. There are plenty of things which I am capable of comprehending when I am in a sufficiently altered focus but in full beta my brain really just can't wrap around it. This goes not just for ideas, but even for sense experiences. Sometimes you have to learn to work with information in the state of mind for which it was intended. You are not going to be able to use logic to understand mysticism. You are trying to intellectually suss it out and it just doesn't work that way. With mysticism you have to go through, not around. And the problem is, to get it to you, someone has to put it into words verbal or written. Words have definitions. There is no way to "correctly" convey much of anything in words short of VCR instructions. There is always a degree of reading between the lines and intuitively allowing things to mean what they need to mean, not just their dictionary definition. Logically, having and giving cannot be the same thing because the definition of these words is different. But mystically, they probably can. This is one reason why traditionally the path of 'teaching' is not to convey the answer, but to provide a question or an experience or a practice which, when the person goes through that, will then result in them coming -- on their own natively -- to an understanding. Because most understandings can't be conveyed in words, even if you can put them in words. (For example you can tell someone about 'intimacy.' It's just a word. Not until someone experiences it, will they understand it. And they will experience and understand it regardless of, and apart from, the word. Once they have that in place, then you can use the word, and it works for them and they may gain understanding of some other things by employing their existing experience and understanding. But at that point the word is merely a pointer, a label, a map -- it's not the territory of what is real, it's only the letters on the nametag. The "logical" part that was "information" was never "experience" and getting 'through' it requires experience. Eastern philosophies have as much armchair-intellectualism as Western sorts do and it's easy to get trapped in that, especially on the internet, because discussion is verbal, so its hitting the logical mind. Intellectualism is not invalid, it's simply only energy at a certain level. The center is the sun, though, so in the end if you want something that genuinely evolves you, you're going to have to include energetic interaction at your heart level, one way or another. You can 'think about' things forever... interesting... but it doesn't get you there. So when you approach a 'fundamental belief system set' like ACiM, see if you can do it with slightly less 'logic' and slightly more 'prayer for assistance with understanding' and see what comes of it. Much of this can come through as "intuitive insights" if you let it. ACiM can get you thinking about the world we live in. It's all a dream, it's all symbology, it's all energy, and we have the ability to interact with and hence influence and design the energy within and around us. Walk around and look at everything from that perspective. Consider how long it took culture to get the tech just to make a modern stop sign, or the implied meaning in a 'sliding glass door.' Think about how sidewalks surround and enclose us: a safe path 'between' the individual and the masses, but also a pre-made path for conformity. Everything is a dream symbol. It is energy, but it is poured into a certain form, function, with which we can experientially interact. But the energy of your arm is just energy, like the energy of your armchair and the tree outside. Fundamentally the energy does not differ; the density, intensity, and creative expression of the energy differs by 'instance' but it's all energy. Physics says we 'trade atoms' with everything around us, which is why the sages have said we should love everything around us. Because if we don't it's not a good result for obvious reasons. Energy doesn't have hard boundaries, we just think it does. It's moving all over all the time. Things are moving through us all the time. (Which is a useful visualization: to imagine negative stuff just 'blowing through you' so you are not setting up resistance, and are letting it go.) Once I was talking to an aspect of self and my cat jumped up on me and for a moment I perceived her like he/she/it/they did. It was rather like a bundle of energy and what I found so fascinating was that their perception of her was that the "cat" part was a "property." By that I mean, the fact that she was female, or she was striped, are just 'properties' -- they don't define her as a being. Well neither did being a cat, it turns out. She was just "a being." The fact that being also happened to be "a cat" was as arbitrary a property as the fact that she was striped. That amazed me for some reason, but later, when I integrated it better, I realized the underlying element is that we are all just 'awareness' at root. An emergent property (a few levels up) is the 'energy' our science can measure. With sufficient density-of-energy there is the emergent property from awareness of 'identity' (self-aware) and this grows by degrees, through duality, and gradually into actual "autonomy." Which we have some of. Not as much as we think. :-) But to get back to topic, the awareness underlying the energy that "composes" your elbows, is just like the energy that composes everything else including your sofa and your tomato. I guess you might say that in a way it means everything is "fundamentally equal." We learn to let go of attachment to things, people and events not because they cannot have meaning to us, but because everything has meaning. We might prefer to hang out with that meaning more than we prefer to hang out with other meanings. That's ok. But it is no more valuable inherently than other meanings. The baseline for existence is equal. Alan Watts (who wrote on Zen) spent effort trying to get readers to understand that what is outside us is just as much 'us' as what is inside us. I never got it. I read his stuff circa age 20 and I really tried. Seth (Jane Roberts) did more for me in one book (The Nature of Personal Reality) than many years of reading on Buddhism ever got me for some reason. But maybe it loosened the lid, so to speak. ;-) Or maybe being of Western culture I just relate a bit more to that communication style. So you go through learning that everything is really just vibrating energy. And then learning that you are really just vibrating energy also. Because EVERY-thing is. Which is to say there is no such thing as things. Only the translated symbolic appearance of an energy which for biological (time and space-based) convenience we consider an object. And learning that your intent, emotion, etc. can actually influence energy. Whether and how it manifests or doesn't for example. And learning that our labels like "car" and "skyscraper" and "tomato" are in fact just labels. The map, not the territory. The things they point to are vibrating energy which being energetic creatures ourselves, we have a relationship with. We perceive not that-thing-there but rather, the "energetic, dynamic interface between" that-thing-there and "us" (I'll leave out the 2-million volume version of what-is-us for now, ha). That means everything we perceive is actually the metabolism or chemistry between, or to be more basic, half-that and half-us, you could say... sort of. As an analogy, we're green, it's blue, we perceive teal. We can never perceive blue because our perception abilities have to go through green. And we can never perceive green because it is not projected outside of us to be an 'other'. So whatever it is we perceive, "we" are part of what we perceive. And we can change ourselves! Which is changing everything else we perceive, too. Because if our magnet suddenly shifts direction for example, it would push some things away, pull some things closer. If our green suddenly got lighter, darker, it would change the teal result in what we experienced. That is to say that reality is essentially 'us' -- -- the dynamic interaction point that is the marriage of what we perceive as self, and what we perceive as other, meeting in the middle. You contain the fundamental, the energy, of everything. But it is your interaction with reality as a 'canvas' -- with energy that is projected as "the-other" (not self) -- that lets you create whatever you like. (The crown chakra is a great deal of this. Well all chakras are of course. But especially Crown, as it showed me.) So the 'source' of the very existence of your tomato is you. Sure, give Jack the individualized-instance of that energy-perceived-as-form for the sake of experience. But the tomato was created from you, of you, and in YOUR experience (not Jack's) is utterly dependent on the existence of you. You cannot know Jack's unique instance of perception of that tomato -- because for Jack, its existence in his reality, let alone its squishy detail, is half HIM. And that works because really, you and Jack are one. But at a fundamental level (way below conscious or even subconscious mind) he's only paying attention to being Jack, and you're only paying attention to being you, and the tomato is only paying attention to being a tomato, so you're all in the place you should be. :-) So you are never without a tomato because you were really never with one. There is no tomato. There is only energy. A quality, which filtered and translated we call a tomato. And you can hold or release, pull or push, change or maintain, energy however you like. You can be physically with or without something, but with the proper (there's the rub...) application of intent to the energy of self, you can simply arrange to have all the tomatoes you want. Or not. As long as you're thinking of yourself as 'without' a certain thing you're essentially telling yourself, a sort of constant self hypnosis, that this energy is missing from your basket, which only attaches to that being-so, and your experience says, ok, if you say so, whatever you say goes, see the basket's still empty, no tomatoes here! If you think of yourself as inherently having everything, because you do, and hey maybe you'd like a tomato soon ok, then relax and let it flow through you, and soon enough you'll have a tomato (or many) move into your reality. It requires some suspension of disbelief, some acting as if, all the time but especially initially, which is tough for logical folks who don't want to be suckers or moon-eyed woo sorts, I know what that's like. It's very difficult to get out of thinking about something instead of just being it. I worked with these ideas 'walking in' to metaphysics when I was a very logical sort, and I had a lot of success with it eventually, in spots. I say it with those caveats because I am not a billionaire sunning with my cabana boys at the moment so probably I did something wrong at some point or maybe I would be. ;-) Teasing. Well, mostly. I don't know if any of that helped at all. Because it's all just words. Aurghck! RC

I got a little confused with the semantics of all this. To me, * Intent is a rather ineffable state of being-and-focus internally * Intent can use avenues for its own 'amplification' and 'expression' * Visualization could be an example of one form of tool covering both avenues * Nothing is in a vacuum so creativity, emotion, etc. usually also plug in when using visualization * Intellectual planning is also an avenue for Intent, perhaps we could say the 'focus' and f-stop :-) Intent is its own thing -- everything else is 'experience and expression' and amount to tools. As far as distance healing goes, although I consider the term a slight misnomer, intent can use any tool for rapport. Doesn't have to be visualization, but visualization can be a symbolic 'meter' (basically subconscious feedback). One can imagine-without-visuals connecting the chakras for example or just 'sitting intertwined with their molecules' or other forms of merge/rapport. Humans and our culture tend to be incredibly visual though, so chances are when you even subtly want to know the status of anything your mind's going to start giving you some kind of visual. Which you can intentionally make into something (their body, a map, a meter/dial/screen, etc.) or allow to be what it is (that can often have more spontaneous but offbeat results). I am no expert at intentional distance rapport with other people though. RC

This is really interesting. The 'mirrors' tech has been used to try and help with phantom limb pain, I've read. The VR stuff is cool and has so many options. I was watching this show on the brain recently and they were demonstrating how if you blindfold a person and then use a VR headset to show them that you are doing something to a humanoid body and you touch their body in the same way at the same time, the brain will 'map' these together. Unfortunately this has some negatives too; if you suddenly stick a knife in the mannequin, it's not so pleasant for the individual. Yes. They did this. Sigh. But I remember Christopher Reeve (or Reeves depending on your Mandela-effect reality :-)) when he was alive saying something like, his spine was actually healed, there wasn't anything physical in the way anymore, it was just a matter of the brain not proactively picking up and using the nerves or whatever -- something like this might "remind" the brain that it actually does have this functionality, using an avatar. RC

Thank you for the info you have provided in this and the other thread. The general cost you'd stated for something quality nearly put me off the whole topic right off. (And it's way higher than the cost you have for the ones you sell, so it wasn't as bad as it seemed.) Curious as to your informed perspective on these two options available in the US for what seems a reasonable price (though more than 'air purifier' prices of course) and that seem to live up to the standards that you have said matter so much (high output NI with low/no output of Ozone). The second one I am very fond of because it just seems like its made by someone real (the warranty/service options and only a direct-buy option suggest this) rather than super mass produced and they seem to know what they're talking about. I realize you are selling NI gens so this is technically competition to you, but I trust you will post honestly at daobums in part because you are truly interested and supportive of the technology and health, regardless. :-) $60 US (including shipping if you have Amazon Prime) https://www.amazon.com/ionbox-Negative-Generator-Highest-Output/dp/B01F2P6LV4/ Selling points on page: * emits up to 20 million negative ions per second * multiple power input options: 110V, 220V, USB * does not emit any ozone * 1.5W energy usage Other notes: -- no comment in sales blurbs about volume/noise so not sure (is crazy tiny though) Negatives at a glance: -- made in China (for USA folks this is usually a negative) -- several amazon reviews diss its longevity $85 US (including shipping) https://www.amazon.com/Negative-Projector-True-Generator-Ionizer/dp/B00D2YAE5W/ Selling points on page: * ion density of at least 1,000,000 negative ions per cubic centimeter at 3 feet away * virtually no ozone. ~20 ppb @1', not detected >1' * runs very quietly (only a faint hiss) * made in the USA (sorry that's only a positive point for USA folks I guess) * flame retardant ABS plastic, RoHS Compliant components (lead-free), and lead-free solder * 30 day money-back guarantee * 2-year included warranty + service options after that * includes free ion detector to measure output now/later and at various distances * highly responsive manufacturer/seller according to reviews Other notes: -- suggests product be ~7-8 feet from appliances plugged into outlets to prevent interference Negatives at a glance: -- has no on/off switch (plug in to turn on) (may be no issue if using 24/7) -- pretty sure this is only 110V (USA market) power in option Thanks lots. RC

Hmmn. I did skim the whole thread but I missed whether you'd had a serious talk with her about your intent before you simply began doing that. Obviously communication and trust is a first and a given. I'm going to assume you did, or tried to recover and have since then. I have a hilarious theory that women deficient in zinc are more driven to both sex and especially fellatio. If there's anything to the theory, withholding semen would have some eventual consequences. Read up on symptoms of it and if it seems possible, buy her a supplement just in case. I'm half-kidding but not entirely... If your woman really needs a sexual relationship and you really need a lifestyle that prohibits completing the sexual act, I think that's a genuine problem... But I have to ask: are you sure, absolutely sure when you really look into your own motivations, that this is truly not related to her? I ask because I think she is definitely taking it as "you are withholding yourself from her because you do not want to give her the intimate part of you." Now, if you were injured or unable that's one thing, but to do it on purpose really is a big deal. And I know lots of people of both genders who at some point in a relationship have withheld either sex or some part of sex from their partner as a sort of quiet passive-aggressive thing. She seems to be reacting 'as if' you are. So I'm just saying... really look honestly into yourself here. You were in the middle of a relationship when you apparently made this decision, which out of all the decisions you could make and all the practices you could have, is the one most likely (short of total breakup) to exclude her from something important. As an aside, a man coming is not just about semen. Really that is totally secondary, although it has its own element of sexy and fun. But the O is the moment he is most deeply open. The audio track of his passion (for those men not still basically repressed-teens thinking of mom catching them so being silent...) is sexy as hell. It is psychological and emotional and physical all at once. I think the 'trade of energy' is reciprocal and a trade. You are taking hers and giving nothing back. Unless she is not really having as much fun as it seems in which case she isn't even getting the proxy satisfaction of yours. I hope it works out. RC

Well... "Peer pressure" is when you have the sense that "other people think X" and this sense causes you to modify your own behavior. It doesn't have to be someone insisting you do something; your own perception and behavior change qualifies. Your response to the sense that women or most-women are fixated on a man's size is the textbook case of peer pressure. It probably doesn't help to know that most people are less affected as they get older (depends on the person of course). Men have been openly ogling impossibly perfect and exaggerated women's bodies for eons. It's only recently women's media got pervasive enough to bring some of the worst traits of men's media into the women's arena too (that's equality -- we'll just pick up all the worst traits we can I suppose!). And sure, some women do think of that, and some romance books do, just like happens in the other direction. So what... Ideally (if for no other than health reasons) you won't be having sex with a woman you don't know somewhat, and if you know her even somewhat, she ought to be into you already before she even gets to your private parts. And by the time she does, you should be keeping her busy with passion in whatever way you and she both like. A really large jewel has some benefit in straight sex for some people -- but a lot of women it actually kind of hurts, and a lot of men are over-sensitive physically as a result of that, and it really sucks for fellatio no pun intended, so give me a normal sized man any day. For that matter, if I had a man who for example were a soldier maimed in combat, if he could even learn to talk to me properly while I touched myself, he could still be in my head and have a deep and sexual relationship with me -- this idea that a man must have any given thing is just so off base. It is so sad that anybody would be inhibited thinking something like that. It's not that being able to do XYZ might not be great, it's just that it's not such a big deal if we can't, because there's a lot of other ways to get to home plate besides the most obvious. Women with flat chests and sagging breasts, women with giant butts and near mustaches, still usually have relationships, get married, and why is that? It's not just that cynical joke about 'lowered expectations' like the SNL skit. It's because eventually, men grow up, and realize that they've been culturally brainwashed into barbie, and that if they are willing to let go of thinking a woman has to be that way, they end up finding someone who makes them think, makes them laugh, makes them want to share his day and thoughts and ideas with her, makes him want to make her allow him in, wants to make her come in his arms, and it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference what her physical attributes are if he feels that way about her. I think some men have a difficulty developing that if they either didn't grow up with many women close to them in good ways, or if they're younger and the physical need for sex is pretty much just hijacking their focus all the time. Sexual attraction is great. But it is spawned by more than one source. The sheer physical element of having a specific attribute that turns someone on is like manual override -- but it's all surface stuff. You can have a lot of sex with a lot of people for physical attraction reasons and still walk away empty inside. But when you really WANT to be with a person, when you are attracted to them, I mean to "them" -- their singularity -- it tends to dramatically change how you feel about the person even physically. You start finding them sexy because you want to be near them, you want to touch them and be touched, you want to affect them, and so on. I think insecurity can cause people to project all of their fears of insufficiency onto some specific thing they can blame -- like it's because they are poor, or because they are losing their hair, or have a small jewel, whatever -- I think it's easy to fall into a sort of trap for doing that, you prevent women ever getting to know you -- and prevent rejection for any other reason -- if you avoid them altogether allegedly because of something you 'think' is going to be an issue with someone, it may well be that you're just cloaking other issues in the 'easy way out.' Like 'well they couldn't possibly like me because I'm from the wrong side of the tracks' or whatever someone has about themselves they are propping all their insecurity behind. If your woman really cares about your size in a negative way, then you have not established a} the kind of solid relationship ideal to have prior to having sex with someone regularly; and possibly, b} you have not developed the skill at sex that would be more ideal. Alternatively of course maybe she is just not mature enough for the kind of relationship we're talking about, that can happen with either gender. But generally if you can bring a woman to climax a couple times, you can pretty much do whatever you like with whatever you've got and she is already happy physically -- the rest is in her head, and it starts and ends with that. If you had a micro issue, it would be the same comment, except that I think toys are really underestimated (usually out of shyness) and if you or your woman wanted more in the way of this activity, go forth and get some. 'Passion' is fiendishly attractive to women. Passion for anything: for life; for various interests or hobbies. Passion for her, once you know her well enough that it wouldn't scare her off, is attractive as well. If your insecurity about what you assume she probably thinks about something keeps you from letting your mind and humor and passion flow freely in your life and communications, you're depriving her of a chance to know the real you, and yourself of a chance to be who you are. And that's going to be necessary for a good relationship, regardless of the details. Best, RC

"People don't see the world as it is, they see it as they are." (From The King and I / Anna and the KIng, but it's paraphrasing an eternal truth.) I feel there is such thing as Truth but when experiencing it, for me it has been a Fundamental -- you might say part of Being-ness -- all the things in our reality that we could have a discussion about, don't even qualify for the discussion. Flotsam, jetsom. Whether we are discussion meditation or our grocery shopping list. It's just floating particles and waves. I currently feel that there is no such thing as objective reality. We and others don't perceive each other truly, but perceive the third thing created by the intersection of our energy. So I don't really think I can opine about who has 'the truth' and who doesn't since a} Truth is a Fundamental, and has a power and origin vastly more Present than myself, and b} how I perceive people-X-who-believe-Y includes a perception that is partly of me and our 'energetic interaction', not just them. RC PS: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth." -- Jiddu Krishnamurti