Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Wed Jun 10 19:20:01 EST 1998

(I did not read the according text again, just guessing the context:)

>neuronsrus at aol.com (NeuronsRUs) wrote:

>Please explain the following:

Simplified example:

Mammal, small round head, large eyes, not steady yet in moving = cute!

Beautiful woman naked in front of hetero-male, legs spread ---> bunch
of sex-programs

Male, smaller than the other, tromping on foot of other male on
intention, saying :"Move your butt!"  = a load of
rankfighting/aggression  and other programs possibly going atomic.

Certain inputs cause certain reactions.
They are genetically programmed in.
Sort of hardware.

There seem to be several thousand in the basolateral amygdala and the
hypothalmus alone  to do with emotion, but then there are bunches of
others, too, to do with hormones, organs and so on.

>> link brain-energies on the low-power-ranges to the point of
>>docking in.

There are different energies on which you can extend into another

Some strain the brains a lot, others are less straining, like some
group of "blackish" ones (I am not sure, might be longer waved and
have less energy)    (Not a real black, but there is no Western term
for them that I know about, and that one the ones I met who know about
it usually understand.)

Docking in: To an extent of course you are linked already before,
but till that point there is not really the feeling to have the other
one to start to park into your head with central force,
but till then it feels more as if still being tuned to a lot of other
ranges, that are sort of leading to the ranges that are the brain

So it feels a bit like first making common fields, and then, similar
to shifting the gears of a car, downshifting the energies of the
heads, and then shifting them to certain ranges, that are the ranges
that are from the brains.
If you then both move central focus into both heads and maybe the
entire stretch between, it tends to create the subjective feeling of
entering (which can be more one-sided, too, if one is focussing on the
other head and the  other one into himself, letting energies from the
other one become highest in some of the sectors.)

I did not read the text again, but maybe that was what I was referring
to with docking in.


Connecting brains with energies and teaching that way, f.e. about how
to perceive "more broadband".

>>energies that are going off a brain
Too lazy to think much about other explanations.
How about forms of akasha (Indian term for all there is) coming from a

Don't recall the context, would that fit there?

>>all the energies there are
See "akasha".

>>many thousands of the major stages
When linked with someone and we shift energies there pop up certain
energies corresponding with what we do.
So if you do certain stuff a certain "group of energies" will become
If you shift the energy stages in the brains, then they shift and
others correspond.
Some are like main groups with bunches of little stuff.
So there is f.e. something like a major stage that I like for "docking
in", but it is not of one single energy, but very, very many.
There is another stage that I myself can not do, that someone who
practiced meditation for 20 years did. He called it"inner light".
I called it shining black-blue (might be mistaken, but it seemed to
have some endorphine effects, too, but don't ask me about that one,
rather someone into meditation who can generate that stage.)

>>all subforms down to what a colleague of another branch  called
>>subatomic ranges
Forgot the context.

The latter meaning not the stuff of atoms like furniture or the wall,
but tiny stuff, like some of what  is "in the air".

>> pressure and wave form in the sectors of the brain

Imagine you have someone sent stuff into you brain that makes certain
pressures and certain waves in areas (that unfortunately back then I
did not pay attention to), and when he changes what he is sending,
then there is a transition phase, and after that there is other
pressures and other waveforms.

So far did not pay much attention to it, though there is some
experiment in vague planning stage to be done within the next half
year together with some neoshaman.
But I do not know if we will have much success,
as it is the soprt of experiment that is highly difficult for both
sides and can not be repeated often without running serious brain

>>all names down to the subatomic ranges for the energies
I have no idea what in the West them energies are called.
Braintaught some student of physics until he got a few of the
non-subatomic simpler major ones, then pointed out a few and asked
what they are called, and he said he did not know.

>>different energy stages in the energy
>>shifting and linking processes

In order to link you need to shift energy stages several times. 

>>shift in the sectors and between the brains
I'd need the whole according passage and the context.

Maybe that when you alter levels it effects many sectors and a lot of
the energy stuff between the brains that is sort of like connecting
energies between equivalent sectors?

Sometimes I don't get at all which passage you are referring to, 
will leave them out, if important juts quote them with the passage.


Possibly referring to the drugs that feel like super blockers in the
synapsis, and which some use to segregate sectors off each other.


Different branches that have a lot to do with the mind, like
brain-srufers, (neo-) shamans, "real" witches (not would-be-Wiccas),
neurology, psychology, Scientology,  Zen, some of the shroomies,
..most practicers of magic and all mental healers and meditation
folks and lots of others.

Imagine a tree-symbol that is of all who in any form explore the human
and it has different branches that are specializing on certain

>>THC and the occiptal cortex as a good sector a first
>>direct docking point and transformer / frequency tuner between the
>>brains of two linking telepaths

The occipital cortex to me feels like it is meant to process other
energies and therefore is more willing to accept those of another
And that with the tuner is just a guess.

The sense enhancers change stuff in the brain and alter processing /
and the ranges   that you can perceive.
Also sending power.

>>segregate far inside

There are many sectors in the brain.

If you are not exchanging signals anymore with many,
then you are sort of segregated quite far.

>>outer front banks

If you perceive from parts of the cholinergic limbic system, then
there is an area a bit down from your perspective, that is sort of
like a deep connection wall behind which there is a region of the
frontal cortex.
That region.

The outer refers to behind "the wall".
"The wall" and some cingulate region seem closer.

Banks is referring to that they are like external memory and
processing mabnks of my systems,
they give me parallel processing power and enable a lot of other
Imagine you have vast parallel processor banks.

How about calling it the "front comuter"?
I like that name far better.

That region reminds me of a computer.


Don't know the context, but I recall I have been using it in context
with criticising those who rather start babbling about our net-size
being the reason for us being conscious or something like that
than to admit that we are where the centers are that deteriorate when
having Alzeimer (ignoring data older than a decade),
...or who come up with bunches of silly theories about the location of
consciousness(es) to avoid contemplations about animals being persons,
according right discussions, and loosing their guinea pigs and maybe
not being able to stick trodes into other persons or cripple their
brain anymore in gross forms, etc, anymore.

>> what do YOU know about Shamanism and what
To long to answer here, and a lot I would have to teach direct.

>>about the OT levels of scientology?
Not enough to repeat it here.

>Operating Thetan levels????!!!!!  Oh, boy!

Do theta waves have to do with any special locations in the brain and
shifting within them what outer energies correspond how?

I dimly recall some term like E-meter and that Ron Hubbard HAS been
exploring energy.

And of what I read of him about 80% were wrong, but about 5% were
brilliant  given the time when he wrote it.

>A defintion meaning "all that is" is kind of meaningless in science.  

Maybe because they ignore too much of what is.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net