Telekinesis

No there's just more than I can write in a single forum post in single sitting and some that I'm not yet comfortable sharing.

I find this slightly ironic given you started this thread being scared of the possibiity of TK being used to harm, made an Xmen analogy which I think is rather fitting, and then went all giddy when you apparently witnessed it for yourself and decided to start learning. It was, to be honest, an awkward and jarring about face. To me, someone being scared of something they don't have and then excited and prideful when they do is a massive red flag. And then when I asked if you'd become one of the same people you'd be scared of you said no because you would only use it for "good," whatever that means, totally missing the point of my question. I let it be but then you kinda went on an egotistical attack of Silence and Illusion to the point of saying you were chosen by fate to witness PSI. You may have been joking but it's hard to trust that given some of the rest of what you said. Its the type of things that makes me pretty wary, especially given you've seemingly avoided telling the story of how things changed given muliple people have asked and as far as I've seen there's been no answer.

According to Jefferey Mishlove in the video posted on the first page, Ted Owen also wanted to be the good guy, wanted to be the one saving the village from volcanoes and stuff. But he was also so petty that when someone ouldn't put his name in a newspaper for ending a drought he decided to just bring the drought back, oh and send a hurricane too, because that's what all those people who had nothing to do with the newspaper deserved after all, death. This demonstrated that Ted Owens couldn't've cared less about being good, he just wanted everyone to tell him he's good, he wanted his name in lights and to be a household name. Because when someone didn't "respect" him, he'd get them killed. His quest to be a "good guy" may be responsible for a few thousand deaths given what Dr. Mishelove claims he did. His attitude, and quite frankly yours, reminds me of half of the spirits that used to attack me, and it doesn't bode well for anyone if it's true.

Yesterday my girlfriend and I were asked to sit on the board for an Advanced Class interview at our Kung Fu studio. Prospective students must undergo a panel interview before they are allowed to progress to that level because we're not interested in teaching psychopaths or hotshot brats who think they're tough techniques that are designed to maim or kill. specifically because of how you appeared to be going after Illusion and Silence and because of the about face you made duribng the course of this thread I decided to ask the student what their definition of morality was. They gave me more or less a standard canned answer about being nice to people and trreating others how you would like to be treated. So I followed up by asking wha their definition of immorality was, how did they define good and evil. They gave me more or less the satndard canned answer again. then, because they used the phrase "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" I decided to ask a third question. I asked them that, since one part of their definition of evil was harming others, do they see any conflict with that and self defense. Given that you have to harm your attacker in order to defend yourself? They didn't quite say yes or no but they did say that that's part of being controlled and not doing things like throwing out that extra hit even if the perrson deserves it or if it would feel really good. So another more or less canned response. Not the best answer but it was probnably as good as I was gonna get from someone I'm putting on the spot so I voted to let them in.

If they had said something along the lines of "Well no, they're attacking me and I'm only defending myself from their attack" I would've voted no, full stop. I will not help teach killing techniques to someone with such a glaring lack of self awareness. I never fully vote yes because I have no way of really knowing that persons true character all I ever really do is vote "above 50%" and wait and see what happens to their attitude when they start realizing just how easy it can be to kill or mutilate a room full of people, on your own, with your bare hands.

People say that power corrupts but I don't really believe that. I think power removes the corruption that reality forces on people. All the little lies everyone tells each other in order to be "civil". Always trying not to hurt someone's feelings beause that's the "polite" thing to do. All these things people do that they tell themselves is them being a "good" person, when in reality it's only because they're trying to get the better end of a deal whether they want to admit it or not. It's no wonder that the now infamous Milgram Experiements found that nearly everyone will kill another random person provided someon with a white lab coat tell them to do it despite all their claims and beliefs of being such good, nonviolent people who would never do such an immoral thing no matter what.

When somone gains power or is distanced from the consequences of not having power, like the internet, those masks come off and the person becomes more themselves. The more power they think they have, the more themselves they become. Some of the people who got into the Advanced class in the past started off as some of the schools best students, then they get to blue belt and think "hey I've got 3 years of experience, I can totally take on the Grand Master who's been training for 45!" and then get a black eye or bruised jaw as a result. Apparently, long before I ever joined, there were a couple cases of random people walking into the studio off of the street making some ridiculous "waaaaaaaaaa~!" noise and an equall ridiculous pose while seriously attempting to challenge people to fights to which they would end up knocked out, on the step outside while the instructor called the police to come pick them up.

I used to try training a couple people about magic and combat via astral projection for a little bit back when inducing shared projections was easy for me. One of them I refuse to ever talk to again. He was a hotshot who'd copy things he'd seen in video games and animes, down to the whole screaming out the name of the attack part, and thought he was a complete badass for it. He was a kid in his mid teens at the time and maybe that had something to do with it, but another guy I was working with was too and is to this day one of the most mature, intelligent people I've ever met. The more he learned about how to sense energy and project it the worse he got. He developed a massive hate boner for me after awhile which I believe was triggered by what I'm very sure was s shared dream between me, my girlfriend, and him where he and a few others attacked both of us. During it he was going on and on and on about how awesome and powerful he was until I ended up beating him. Then he got incredibly depressed and defeatist before the dream eventually ended.

The next day my girlfriend and I were talking about what happened in chat while he was there. I was certain teh guy that attacked us was him or at least somehow related because the energy felt identical. We remembered there was a lot of strange terms and jargon the guy was using that we didn't recognize or quite remember how to say properly... but he could. He filled in all the blanks for us and we asked him how he knew all of this. Apparently it was all from yet another anime, one he was particularly obsessed with at the time. Although he never outright admitted to being the guy in the dream my girlfriend and I are pretty much certain it was him and he was just too embarrassed to admit it given what happened. The attacker had his energy signature and he was the only one who knew what all the random anime jargon was. Plus he already seemed jealous or hatreful or whatever of me in particular. Which seemed to get worse than it already was afterwards. At the time I wasn't sure that it was him and couldn't prove it anyways so I continued trying to work with him. Eventually after a few more cases of him being a total jackass that thought he knew everything, both in confirmed projections and in the chat, I just cut him off.

Everyone I've ever seen, including myself, who ever believed they're going to use their power for "good" ends up one of two ways. They either end up like Ted Owen who would try to interrupt naval excercises, get people to commit suicide, or crash planes if people didn't take him seriously, until the only person who still thinks they're a "good guy" is them and maybe a few other equally narcissistic friends. Or they grow a brain and realize that good and evil is just a matter of perspective after a few mistakes throw their hypocrisy back in their face.

I should probably edit this more but it's like 1am and I need to sleep.
I think your overanalyzing you need to take a big step back, your personal experiences are leaking in to your judgements Making you a tad bit paranoid
 
I think your overanalyzing you need to take a big step back, your personal experiences are leaking in to your judgements Making you a tad bit paranoid

I wasn't accusing you of anything, as I even said repeatedly in my post, it's just something for you and anyone else delving into TK or related to keep in the back of their minds in case it starts happening to them. Awareness of what can cause a problem is the first way to avoid one. Joy Lin had an interesting story about what almost happened as a result of her anger.

::EDIT::/
Much like with martial arts or firearms, moreso even, it's very important to have a solid understanind of logic and philosophy. The more power you gain relative to those around you, the less likely you are to face consequences for your actions, the more amorphous and nonsensical previously held notions of good and evil become, the more stressed you feel at trying to follow them, the easier it becomes to justify to yourself that getting your way is still good, the more unhinged from reality you become. I've seen it happen more than once so that's why I feel it's important to post the warning.
 
Last edited:
definition of morality was. They gave me more or less a standard canned answer about being nice to people and trreating others how you would like to be treated. So I followed up by asking wha their definition of immorality was, how did they define good and evil.

How do you answer these questions?
 
There's something so freeing when actually experiencing something "anomalous" waiting for science to catch up and put down their egos. Write down your experiences date and times how you feel, I said it before, notice the skeptics haven't replied. I mean there is a genuine reason why they would be attracted to these subjects and message board
 
It's no wonder that the now infamous Milgram Experiements found that nearly everyone will kill another random person provided someon with a white lab coat tell them to do it despite all their claims and beliefs of being such good, nonviolent people who would never do such an immoral thing no matter what.

That is not what the milgram experiments showed at all, the rate was 65% obedience according to milgram. Furthermore it has been found to be highly contentious and that Milgram may have doctored the results according to http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study
 
That is not what the milgram experiments showed at all, the rate was 65% obedience according to milgram. Furthermore it has been found to be highly contentious and that Milgram may have doctored the results according to http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study

The actual number of people is largely irrevevant next to the reasons the people who did obey were obeying. In general the more distanced a person is from what they're doing, the less responsibility they have, the less likely they are to face consequences, if they will be rewarded for obeying and how much, the more likely they are to do what they're told. Which is what the various versions of the experiments showed.

But I've got a few things even better, even more creepy, and even more relevant than the Milgram Experiments to help illustrate this point:



If you think this one's fantastical and would never really happen outside of a Brave New World or 1984 Redux, you're wrong:


Canadian Government Rolls Out The Most Disturbing App Ever

So yes, my point still stands

::EDIT::/

There is a very good reason why pretty much all religions and spiritual traditions focus so much on valuing emotions and then combining that with a concept of morality. it's beacuse if you can make someone think their emotions have any bearing on reality, you've put a lever in their mind that you, the ruler, can use to herd your sheep wherever you want in whatever way you want. Making them do things that would otherwise go against their self interest by making them believe and feel that it doesn't.

All of this boils down to creating and influencing a persons concept of good and evil. Morality is the basis of tribalism and collectivism and all the things that come with it, you can't have one without the other. If there is no concept, there is no lever. Or at least not one that's as easily accessible.
 
Last edited:
How do you answer these questions?

If I had to answer this in front of a panel I'd probably be saying that morality doesn't exist, a persons concept of good or bad is just an opinion they forms based on their current situation, goal, mental state, avaliable information, worldview, and avaliable capabilities and it changes all the time because of that. the feeling of something being good or bad is far more a subconscious measure of percieved efficiency, pleasure, safety, etc than anything spiritual. there is not and mathematically cannot be any universal, immutable, right or wrong. Then more than likely I'd need to go into far more information about what that looks like in practice because many people still think that if you say morality isn't real that you're somehow condoning genocides and whatnot whch totally misses the point.

By taking the objectivity out of it, there can no longer be a double standard when it comes to self defense, every situation is treated individually to the best of your ability, so there's far less chance of unwittingly paving a road to hell for yourself since you were never trying to do "good" in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The actual number of people is largely irrevevant next to the reasons the people who did obey were obeying.

It's not irrelevant to your claim that nearly anyone would kill if asked to do so by someone in a labcoat, which is false.

In general the more distanced a person is from what they're doing, the less responsibility they have, the less likely they are to face consequences, if they will be rewarded for obeying and how much, the more likely they are to do what they're told
Except the subjects were paid in advance and informed they could quit at any time and that there would be no consequences. Or are you no longer referencing the Milgram experiment.

Which is what the various versions of the experiments showed.
Which version are you referencing? I see you have gotten much more vague now that your specific claim has been challenged. Are you aware that there are competing interpretations of the Milgram experiment?

So yes, my point still stands
Could you formalize your point?

Making them do things that would otherwise go against their self interest by making them believe and feel that it doesn't.
But your definition of self interest includes all actions a person chooses to make as we clarified in an earlier thread unless I'm misremembering. How then could anyone do anything they didn't want to do?

Morality is the basis of tribalism and collectivism and all the things that come with it
I disagree, Survival and group identity are at the base of tribalism. I don't have an opinion on collectivism.
 
there is not and mathematically cannot be any universal, immutable, right or wrong.

How can there be no mathematical right or wrong? I assume you mean as pertains to morality, where is the proof? While its certainly difficult to come up with a perfect answer to any moral quandary it is very easy to come up with a wrong answer, this to me suggests that its probable that there may be a perfect answer or at least a gradient of not-wrong answers. An easy example is 'what would the moral thing to do if you are in a room with a bomb that would kill every person in new york with 2 wires, red and blue, one will detonate the device and the other will defuse it' and the answer given is 'I don't much care for moral questions so I choose to leave the building.' I'd say that is probably a very wrong answer, but hey maybe every person in new york on that day is the next Hitler.

If I had to answer this in front of a panel I'd probably be saying that morality doesn't exist.
Would you have allowed that other person to learn killing techniques if he told you he didn't believe morality existed?
 
Which version are you referencing? I see you have gotten much more vague now that your specific claim has been challenged. Are you aware that there are competing interpretations of the Milgram experiment?

Guess I don't know as much about it as I thought.

An easy example is 'what would the moral thing to do if you are in a room with a bomb that would kill every person in new york with 2 wires, red and blue, one will detonate the device and the other will defuse it' and the answer given is 'I don't much care for moral questions so I choose to leave the building.' I'd say that is probably a very wrong answer, but hey maybe every person in new york on that day is the next Hitler.

And how is your answer anything other than your opinion?

But your definition of self interest includes all actions a person chooses to make as we clarified in an earlier thread unless I'm misremembering. How then could anyone do anything they didn't want to do?

They're not, it's a question of whether they'd believe what they believe without the manipulation. Hence the "would otherwise be" part.

I disagree, Survival and group identity are at the base of tribalism.

I mean the "us vs them" mentality

How can there be no mathematical right or wrong? I assume you mean as pertains to morality, where is the proof?

As I've said many other places on the site, a variable can't be filled with two different constants simultaneously.

Would you have allowed that other person to learn killing techniques if he told you he didn't believe morality existed?

Yes.
 
Unless it's a quantum variable in a state of quantum superposition ;)

LOL

I thought that at one point and thought it might solve the problem then I realized there was still no way to reference the variable if you do that so it didn't work.
 
Back
Top