Magick: Objective or Subjective?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=KCh;375743]Magick is certainly the union of Subject and Object, not one or the other.

This limiting of 'Objective or Subjective' is horridly boorish mediocrity-thought.[/QUOTE]

Subject & Object are not the same as Subjective and Objective. Technically, the uniting of subject & object is a subjective experience. Subject and object are the two components of people's phenomenological or subjective experience. Get the difference or must I define everything for people?

Objective means that something is perceivable from multiple standpoints - like a tree. Subjective means that something is only perceivable by that one subject - like a hallucination, astral visions, etc.

By the way, if Magick is simply the union of Subject and Object its no different than mysticism. If its the Science & Art of causing Change in accordance with Will its much more than that and includes most things you would normally include in the label of 'ceremonial magick.'

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: elvex

[QUOTE=IAO131;375856]Subject & Object are not the same as Subjective and Objective. Technically, the uniting of subject & object is a subjective experience. Subject and object are the two components of people's phenomenological or subjective experience. Get the difference or must I define everything for people?[/QUOTE]
And disagreement is not the same as misunderstanding.

Re. the rest of what you have written here, you and I have talked a bit about the subject(ive)-object(ive) problem apropos of magic, elsewherewhen, and I assume you can recall my position on that, so I won't repeat myself here. But I will say that the question of whether magic and magical results are subjective or objective has been debated for a long time now, and hasn't really gotten anywhere--we keep encountering the same arguments, divisions, etc. I again suggest we need something else to explain magic, and also that something else might be a product of subjective and objective--which is why I cheered on KCh's comment.

"If a union is to take place between opposites like spirit and matter, conscious and unconscious, bright and dark, and so on, it will happen in a third thing, which represents not a compromise but something new." -- Carl Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: fratersb

[QUOTE=IAO131;375644]Technically not really. If you say you are going to get X and you get Y, you failed. THis doesnt occur in a lot of Magick where you say 'oh I guess Y is sort of like X anyhow!'
IAO131[/QUOTE]

Actually I disagree here. Your looking for a quantifiable returnable result when sometimes there simply isnt. Its rather like forecasting the weather. We know what it should do. But how often is the weatherman wrong?
Maybe its a bit over the top, but as I see it, Magick sets forth a change in the subconscious. Since your subconscious is universal, or linked to a universal subconscious as however you were taught, this throws a pebble on the proverbial mountain. As it snowballs down to conscious, material level, you cant tell when you start if you snowball is going to be big enough to knock over a skier or be a nice base for a snowman. Or if its going to stop. The intention sometimes, heck, rarely, matches exactly the desired effect. But I have no doubt if you start the snowball, it will have some effect, even if it hits a tree on way down. Our problem is that we dont see the trees. the hill, or the snowball. No more than we see the wind before we throw a football, or hit a golf ball. But we try to anticipate. And we get better as we go along. Just because a +b does not equal x does not mean that a+b(c/d) with c and d being unknown variables might not equal x.

As for faith. I have complete faith in myself. Sine dubio. Without faith in yourself, and complete faith in what your doing, you wont do what you want any more than a martial artist that doesnt believe he can break a brick can do it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: KCh

Subject & Object are not the same as Subjective and Objective. Technically, the uniting of subject & object is a subjective experience. Subject and object are the two components of people's phenomenological or subjective experience. Get the difference or must I define everything for people?

Objective means that something is perceivable from multiple standpoints - like a tree. Subjective means that something is only perceivable by that one subject - like a hallucination, astral visions, etc.

By the way, if Magick is simply the union of Subject and Object its no different than mysticism. If its the Science & Art of causing Change in accordance with Will its much more than that and includes most things you would normally include in the label of 'ceremonial magick.

Technically I would say your wrong on your first point. The uniting of subject and object would produce an 'experience', and experience is not necessarily subjective or objective but always the union of both aspects. The subject of myself unites with the object of the tree, the subject of the tree unites with the object of myself...henceforth experience or consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to one's own personal subjective experiences but includes the experiences of other consciousness in the Great Consciousness itself; aka the eternally infinite universe. Subjective is just as illusory as objective and vice versa, it is only in Union itself of these dualities that we come to anything resembling true 'reality'.

There are numerous cases of mass hallucination and visions. I recommend studying them, they are quite fascinating. Also I recommend the documentary 'Century of the Self' in regards to mass propaganda techniques that effectively control the so called 'subjective' aspects of ourselves. I.E. emotion etc...

Magick, in its goal, is no different than Mysticism. Its method is merely the dividing point. Re-read the 0=2 equation sections of Magick without Tears. Magick is pointed out by Crowley to be like the combination of polar opposites towards the goal of annihilation or Nothing.(1)+(-1)=0 It is different from Mysticism because it uses the method of positivism or addition instead of negativism and subtraction. 1-1=0 is Mysticism in this respect.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: spiritual_aspirant

I can only offer my opinion. But since I am new at the spiritual path, I'm not sure it would be of much value. Here goes..

There are two ways to answer this. One is on the point of view of people (including me) who have not yet conquered the limiting illusion of duality, and those who have (certainly not me haha).

For those who still have a dualist view, the answer I would give is both. Magic is both subjective and objective; microcosm vs macrocosm.. etc. There are magical workings that will require you to shift your consciousness before you can effectively perform it, which in turn will always have an outward effect. An example of this would be telekinesis or remote viewing. Most people can perform these feats when slowing down their brain activity to the alpha level, this is the level where people are most open to psychic phenomena. So, first a change in consciousness, then depending on what you want to do, there is a corresponding outward effect. This is a very simplistic way of telling it, but I hope I got it right.

For those who have conquered the illusion of duality, there is no point in asking the question because in effect there is no separation between subject and object.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

Technically I would say your wrong on your first point. The uniting of subject and object would produce an 'experience', and experience is not necessarily subjective or objective but always the union of both aspects.

Actually you're wrong and its quite silly that people here don't know the difference between "Subject/Object" and "Subjective/Objective." Let me try to explain it to you AGAIN: Anything that is an 'experience,' as you say, is SUBJECTIVE. Even the uniting of 'Subject adn Object' is a SUBJECTIVE experience. The 'Subject and Object' make up your normal SUBJECTIVE experience.

The subject of myself unites with the object of the tree, the subject of the tree unites with the object of myself...henceforth experience or consciousness.

Exactly - experience adn consciousness are both subjective. The tree itself is objective as is your body, but your EXPERIENCE of the two uniting in consciousness is subjective.

Consciousness is not limited to one's own personal subjective experiences but includes the experiences of other consciousness in the Great Consciousness itself; aka the eternally infinite universe.

Right... That doesnt matter as consciousness is ONLY experienced subjectively, even if it is the experience of subject & object uniting.

Subjective is just as illusory as objective and vice versa, it is only in Union itself of these dualities that we come to anything resembling true 'reality'.

I think you mean subject and object and I wouldnt be surprised because you never failed to confuse subject/object with subjective/objective in your post many times

There are numerous cases of mass hallucination and visions. I recommend studying them, they are quite fascinating. Also I recommend the documentary 'Century of the Self' in regards to mass propaganda techniques that effectively control the so called 'subjective' aspects of ourselves. I.E. emotion etc...

Very good. Emotion, consciousness, hallucination, and visions are all subjective. Whether theres a mass hallucination from media or not does not matter. All the sensations and consciousness are subjective. The behaviors and the physical apparatuses are objective.

Magick, in its goal, is no different than Mysticism. Its method is merely the dividing point. Re-read the 0=2 equation sections of Magick without Tears. Magick is pointed out by Crowley to be like the combination of polar opposites towards the goal of annihilation or Nothing.(1)+(-1)=0 It is different from Mysticism because it uses the method of positivism or addition instead of negativism and subtraction. 1-1=0 is Mysticism in this respect.

Im aware of that aspect of magick - in fact I could argue you are wrong and that the final act of Magick is actually a resigning of the Will (Passive Will he calls it) which is identical with Christian (and other) mystics.

I can only offer my opinion. But since I am new at the spiritual path, I'm not sure it would be of much value. Here goes..

There are two ways to answer this. One is on the point of view of people (including me) who have not yet conquered the limiting illusion of duality, and those who have (certainly not me haha).

For those who still have a dualist view, the answer I would give is both. Magic is both subjective and objective; microcosm vs macrocosm.. etc.

Wow - are all occultists just ignorant, unobservant, or what?
SUBJECT/OBJECT IS NOT THE SAME AS SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE. THE UNITING OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

Is that somewhat clear enough?

There are magical workings that will require you to shift your consciousness before you can effectively perform it

This would be subjective

, which in turn will always have an outward effect.

This would be objective.

An example of this would be telekinesis or remote viewing. Most people can perform these feats when slowing down their brain activity to the alpha level, this is the level where people are most open to psychic phenomena.

No offense but htere is zero evidence for this. Even the military lookedi nto this and shut it down eventually because it was useless. Psychic cops are equally useless.

For those who have conquered the illusion of duality, there is no point in asking the question because in effect there is no separation between subject and object.

I like how a lot of people just say things becuase theyve read them places and just assume them to be true. (not that I disagree, I just find it funny people prattle off these platitudes about subject & object without having experienced it by their own admission)

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: KCh

Experience is not subjective or objective. The experience doesn't just 'belong' to me but to all the parties involved. It is not just inside me, it is the result of a union between divided aspects of a single consciousness. There are experiences happening outside of myself all the time. A tree that falls when no one is around to hear really does fall because something else that may not have ears or eyes will experience it. The grass or other trees for instance. Experience is not limited to sense or subject. It is infinite and eternal.

Oh, and please forgo the silly semantic debate. Your word twisting and slinging does nothing to hamper my logic or reason. Insert Object when I say objective or subject where I say subjective it matters not, the result is the same.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Uni_Verse

[quote=""IAO131""]
Let me try to explain it to you AGAIN: Anything that is an 'experience,' as you say, is SUBJECTIVE. Even the uniting of 'Subject adn Object' is a SUBJECTIVE experience. The 'Subject and Object' make up your normal SUBJECTIVE experience.
[/quote]

If all experience is subjective - does that not also mean that all science is subjective?

A scientist, taking part in an experiment, at its end derives a conclusion from his or her experience. If the conclusion is based on what has been observed, how can it be considered objective? To decide what has been observed is a subjective experience.

Objectivity occurs only when a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

Experience is not subjective or objective.

Actually by definition of philosophers and scientists, consciousness itself is subjective. What one is conscious OF, the representations of consciousness represent SOMETHING, is something objective.

The experience doesn't just 'belong' to me but to all the parties involved. It is not just inside me, it is the result of a union between divided aspects of a single consciousness.

One could understand it in this way but it wouldnt be very effective or true in my opinion. The experience belogns only to you - it is only by the fact that we share similar subjective awarenesses that we agree upon an objective fact. Objective facts are just this - something that can be seen from multiple angles, tested by external devices, etc. whereas your dreams, thoughts, feelings, etc are most certainly NOT shared. This is called 'privileged access' by philosophers.

There are experiences happening outside of myself all the time. A tree that falls when no one is around to hear really does fall because something else that may not have ears or eyes will experience it.

It falls whether anyone experiences it or not because its an objective occurrence. Something like pain, on the other hand, can NOT happen when no one experiences it because it is a subjective experience, it depends on an awareness to exist.

Oh, and please forgo the silly semantic debate. Your word twisting and slinging does nothing to hamper my logic or reason. Insert Object when I say objective or subject where I say subjective it matters not, the result is the same.

Actually there is a difference. Its not a semantic debate - you only think so because the words share similar roots - its really just your own plain ignorance and inability to understand the difference between similar sounding words that you think its a semantic debate.

If all experience is subjective - does that not also mean that all science is subjective?

No, because of the above reason that objective things are shared experiences - Science uses a subset of objective things that can be (a) tested (b) repeated (c) measured, etc.

A scientist, taking part in an experiment, at its end derives a conclusion from his or her experience.

If you consider the reading of a measurement device 'their own experience,' sure, but it doesnt depend on that subjective awareness.

If the conclusion is based on what has been observed, how can it be considered objective?

This is exactly the point. If multiple people can observe it - it is objective, it is external - for example the Sun passing through the sky. If only one person can observe it - it is subjective, it is 'internal' - for example, the consciousness of pain, the consciousness of subejct & object uniting, thoughts, feelings, consciousness itself, etc etc.

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AstralMagickCraft

This all rests on the false dichotomy of your mind being subjective and reality being objective.

Everything there is, is information. like a computer, data programming.

Its like the matrix, things aren't things, but programmed to be of a thing quality and shape and etc.

I am certain a good occultist can feel anothers pain if he tries, empaths already feel emotions. (god forbid those of the air/thought variety! )

If only one man saw the sun pass through the sky, would it be subjective?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: elvex

[QUOTE=IAO131;376356]
This is exactly the point. If multiple people can observe it - it is objective, it is external - for example the Sun passing through the sky. If only one person can observe it - it is subjective, it is 'internal' - for example, the consciousness of pain, the consciousness of subejct & object uniting, thoughts, feelings, consciousness itself, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
So...

1. If two people are standing around when the sun goes overhead, and one of them is blind, then the sun is subjective/not-objective? The realists of the world aren't going to like that...

2. If two people evoke the same daemon, and give the same description of said daemon (and we cannot know what anyone has observed except by her description of her observation), then said daemon is objective/not-subjective? If that's the case, then the Goetic daemons must be objective, because many people have reported seeing them and many of their reports describe similar experiences.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: elvex

[QUOTE=IAO131;376324]
No offense but htere is zero evidence for this. Even the military lookedi nto this and shut it down eventually because it was useless. Psychic cops are equally useless.[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing a key point here. There is a figurative mountain of evidence supporting telekinesis, remote viewing, and other anomalous phenomena. What's missing is consistent laboratory verification. But it we could consistently verify it in a lab, then it wouldn't be magic; it would be science.

Many people (say they) do results magic, and many (say they) have successful results (probably more than should, I'll gladly concede). [1] If you categorize all of those experiences as cognitive bias errors, then you're trivializing a large--perhaps the largest--part of magical experience and culture, imo.

[1: One of the foundational observations of Chaos magic is that ritual-result (cf. cause-effect) correlations appear regardless of whether we imagine the relationship (i.e., the rule of transformation) between them is a daemon or sigil we charged, or a deity we petitioned, or mystical energy, or sub/unconscious mental process, or whatever--i.e., the particulars of ritual are highly arbitrary. It's a black box that can be filled with many different models and still produce output (result) that significantly resembles our input (intent).]

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

[QUOTE=elvex;376366]So...
If that's the case, then the Goetic daemons must be objective, because many people have reported seeing them and many of their reports describe similar experiences.[/QUOTE]

Experiences like this are usually because of cultural similarities, at least the accounts I have read, and witnessed. For example, someone raised in a fairly "standard" Western enviorment like most Americans, and Europeans regardless of class, or ecosystem, may see the same type of "Demon" or "Angel" as another person who is across the Atlantic (with mild dissimilarities) because of the way in which their civilizations were brought up with the same customs, folk-lore, duties, religons, etc.

My opinion is that people who are interested in Ceremonial Magick, and certain forms of Mysticism should start out with the belief that there is no objective "reality", or phenomena. It is a good idea to destroy the thought of these mirages before beginning, and then try and prove yourself wrong. Cutting away all the bullshit, and fantasy that seems to stop students dead in their tracks before they even make progress should be a top priority.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ishvara

My opinion is that people who are interested in Ceremonial Magick, and certain forms of Mysticism should start out with the belief that there is no objective "reality", or phenomena. It is a good idea to destroy the thought of these mirages before beginning, and then try and prove yourself wrong. Cutting away all the bullshit, and fantasy that seems to stop students dead in their tracks before they even make progress should be a top priority.

Or they could stop thinking of gods, angels and demons as "powerful people without bodies", and start seeing them as personalized aspects of creation. I consider them objective in this sense and subjective in the way we perceive them.

Of course when a real djinn chooses to mindfuck you for whatever reason it's time for forced paradigm shift.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Uni_Verse

Their Towers fall on Their own Time.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

[QUOTE=Ishvara;376389]
Of course when a real djinn chooses to mindfuck you for whatever reason it's time for forced paradigm shift. [/QUOTE]

What is the difference between a "real djinn" and, say, a tragedy in the family that leaves one emotionally unstable, and mentally bankrupt? I didn't slap a name from a Grimoire on my Heroin addiction and then "banish" it. I went to a counselor, and a Methadone clinic.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

What I am trying to say, in the long run, is that after 7 years of practice, and 10 journals splattered with phenomena, amazingly perfect results, and just as many failures, and long periods of stagnant practice, I would still have to say that I see the practice of Magick as a whole to be a subjective experience. Whatever is seen, felt, and experienced by the practitioner is filtered, and processed through the personal functioning of the mind so that it becomes a reflection of the personality. During evocation I have stood face-to-face with entities. I think this presence takes shape upon the mental plane, and then takes on objectivity when the Ceremony comes to climax.

DuQuette makes a good point when he says, "Its all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head isâ?Â

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

*sorry please delete, double post*

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=RifRaf;376408]What I am trying to say, in the long run, is that after 7 years of practice, and 10 journals splattered with phenomena, amazingly perfect results, and just as many failures, and long periods of stagnant practice, I would still have to say that I see the practice of Magick as a whole to be a subjective experience. Whatever is seen, felt, and experienced by the practitioner is filtered, and processed through the personal functioning of the mind so that it becomes a reflection of the personality. During evocation I have stood face-to-face with entities. I think this presence takes shape upon the mental plane, and then takes on objectivity when the Ceremony comes to climax.[/quote]

Interesting points - I approve of the skepticism of your approach (including your earlier point about taking objective not as a given and THEN trying to disprove it - most people just take things as given and stay that way)

[quote]DuQuette makes a good point when he says, "Its all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head isâ?Â

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

[QUOTE=IAO131;376419]

Exactly - the point is that 'beings' can merely be aspects of the unconscious coming to the forefront - and the unconscious CAN and DOES appear autonomous to the conscious ego. That doesnt mean its objective by any means - just seemingly 'other' form the 'self'

IAO131[/QUOTE]

Yes, you phrase it alot better than I can.

Another thing I was going to bring up earlier is the question of reality and objectivity as a whole. The only thing we can truly say is "real" are the experiences that we, ourselves, go through. But this may only be "real" to us. If one person watches the Sun set next to another person (assuming neither are blind, retarded, etc.) they both know that the Sun is setting and their different senses are stimulated due to the experience. But how do we know that the Sun as I see it, is the same way you see it? Through my eyes the sun might look completly different than what your eyes take in. If you were to look through my eyes you might see that the sun looks nothing like what you see, it might be a different color, and shape. Because of our senses defining one thing, such as the sun, as Orange, and Circular we know that to us Orange and Circular looks like such, and such. But if you were to look through my eyes you might see what to you would be a Green Triangle. Now this is a pretty absurd, and very unlikely assumption, but we can not prove this to be wrong. An example of this is the color blind. They may see what our senses deem "Red" as "Green", so we then teach them to use the "Red" crayon to color something "Green". In this way the popular ideal can be meet.

*phew* That is fucking confusing now that I read it again.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=RifRaf;376422]Yes, you phrase it alot better than I can.

Another thing I was going to bring up earlier is the question of reality and objectivity as a whole. The only thing we can truly say is "real" are the experiences that we, ourselves, go through. But this may only be "real" to us. If one person watches the Sun set next to another person (assuming neither are blind, retarded, etc.) they both know that the Sun is setting and their different senses are stimulated due to the experience. But how do we know that the Sun as I see it, is the same way you see it? Through my eyes the sun might look completly different than what your eyes take in. If you were to look through my eyes you might see that the sun looks nothing like what you see, it might be a different color, and shape. Because of our senses defining one thing, such as the sun, as Orange, and Circular we know that to us Orange and Circular looks like such, and such. But if you were to look through my eyes you might see what to you would be a Green Triangle. Now this is a pretty absurd, and very unlikely assumption, but we can not prove this to be wrong. An example of this is the color blind. They may see what our senses deem "Red" as "Green", so we then teach them to use the "Red" crayon to color something "Green". In this way the popular ideal can be meet.

*phew* That is fucking confusing now that I read it again.[/QUOTE]

Basically the objective is anything that is viewable and confirmable from many perspectives - Thomas Nagel defines objective events/physical events as " objective facts par excellenceâ??the kind that served and understood from many points of view and by individuals with differing perceptual systems. ". I can see a tree from one angle and you the other - and we are seeing slightly if not greatly different images - btu we both confirm 'tree' as objective through this. Whereas our qualitative differences may be insurmountable (you see red, i see green, we both call it X), for many things in Magick this is not a problem. Either you see the object in the other room through astral projection or you dont. Either you move hte object (no matter what color) or you dont. Either an entity appears or it doesnt. The qualities of these experiences may vary but the basic idea, the supposed objective effects of magick can be verified nonetheless.

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ishvara

What is the difference between a "real djinn" and, say, a tragedy in the family that leaves one emotionally unstable, and mentally bankrupt? I didn't slap a name from a Grimoire on my Heroin addiction and then "banish" it. I went to a counselor, and a Methadone clinic.

(This is what I personally currently think, and do not claim to be the One Truth or anything, so take it as you will. It's also 6am and I'm muddleheaded but it's nothing new. )

I don't think the djinn are behind human tragedies, not most of them anyway. I believe they mind their own business and avoid us like plague.

I have a reason to believe that there are entities that are invisible to human sight and that aren't manifestations of our subconscious minds - everything from light beings to nature spirits.

What you probably meant are the "demons" of bad luck, addiction and insanity etc. I don't think these demons are "real" outside an eggregoric layer we have comfortably manifested in the collective unconscious - but to make things more complicated, I do think there is another layer - or rather, another dimension or plane of existence - that does have objective entities and some of them might get kicks from causing tragedies in our plane of existence.

In other words, unlike DuQuette I don't see the Goetics being the cause of our misfortunes for example. Yet they could be, especially after we've foolishly attracted their attention towards us.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Universe is big enough to have more entities than those visible in our planet. Not everything revolves around the subconscious minds of some hairless apes either.

Of course I will gladly accept new ideas, since fixed ideas and dogmas aren't very spiritually productive.

"Nothing to do, nothing to obtain, and depending upon nothing, the self will manifest." -some zen guy

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

(This is what I personally currently think, and do not claim to be the One Truth or anything, so take it as you will. It's also 6am and I'm muddleheaded but it's nothing new:)

I don't think the djinn are behind human tragedies, not most of them anyway. I believe they mind their own business and avoid us like plague.

I have a reason to believe that there are entities that are invisible to human sight and that aren't manifestations of our subconscious minds - everything from light beings to nature spirits.

What reason is that exactly?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Universe is big enough to have more entities than those visible in our planet. Not everything revolves around the subconscious minds of some hairless apes either.

It is certainly logically possible but all kinds of tests and verification (Science, that is) has shown that this is not hte case, and not even necessary for explaining events.

Of course I will gladly accept new ideas, since fixed ideas and dogmas aren't very spiritually productive.

On this we can agree.

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: elvex

[QUOTE=IAO131;376419]
Success is your proof - the real question is if people belive in objective effects like hte person who claims there are 'mountains of evidence' for things like telekinesis (which I heartily idsagree with - it seems more like mountains of people who wish to believe in these objective effects.).[/QUOTE]
I didn't say those were objective effects; you did. And are you really disputing the number of anecdotal accounts of anomalous phenomena, or are you just side-stepping my point? I already admitted they are anecdotal i.e. lacking consistent laboratory verification (although, there are several studies such as PEAR that have produced statistical significance in the judgment of some scientists). If they were so consistent, then they wouldn't be anomalous.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: RifRaf

What exactly is PEAR? I haven't heard of it, link?

*edit* Nevermind, sorry. I know what PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) is I just know it by a different name. Didn't the project get abandoned?