1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

related matters

Discussion in 'Instrumental TransCommunication with Stations' started by mac, Jun 1, 2016.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    I agree, Mac--but if we had such a form of communication, we likely wouldn't need the Stations in the first place. ;)

    Those working with the Station have been known to go through other channels when they have needed to get an urgent message across. For example, when Craig and the other researchers were having trouble connecting early on, those at the Station alerted Susanne Wilson to the problem while Roberta was having a reading with her; they knew that the message would then get passed along to Craig. Craig also interviews a spirit named Marlene, who is working with the Brazilian Station--Sonia Rinaldi then translates the responses. So, I would say that those in Spirit are trying, Mac, but a perfect alternative for communication doesn't exist.
     
  2. mac

    mac host

    The stations are being used specifically not to need an organic go-between but an alternative way of keeping in touch while the so-called ITC experiment was underway, while deliberately-limited communication is being prioritised, could still be helpful. Then experimenters - discarnate and incarnate equally - could ask questions etc. It's hardly rocket science as the saying goes.....;) You've even given an example, Andrew, of how an alternative means of communication was helpful.
     
  3. mac

    mac host

    summarising things, then....

    For anyone interested in, or intending experimenting with, the ITC route to communicate with their loved ones you may wish to mull over the following summary of what's happening - as far as I understand things.

    ITC is an experiment in reaching out to unseen relatives and friends - the approach is only one-way. We're told they may know our intent in advance and respond promptly. If they don't then someone on 'the other side' will 'pass on a message' on our behalf. We've been told there's now no risk of mischief-makers interfering with communication because the 'level' from which transmissions are made is much higher than mischief-makers can 'operate' at. No need then (I suggest) for old fashioned prayer before you try. Prayers to whom for what? Even verification of a communicator's identity shouldn't be necessary; whomever we want to 'speak to either comes or doesn't. The age-old maxim of mediumship appears to obtain - we can't command the presence of someone who doesn't want to come.

    The communication device used is some form of translator/transformer that appears to convert thoughts that are
    telepathically sent to it. The output from it appears to be a signal that can modulate certain frequencies used by humankind's electronic equipments. Apart, perhaps, from a helper sending an initial telepathic message to the intended recipient there is no further third-party involvement in subsequent communication.

    As a final thought, those who communicate with us are not 'the dead'; they're very much alive. If we persist in referring to them as the dead then we help prolong superstitions. This is a modern means of communication for a modern-day world. Let's please drop old phrases and coin new ones.

    I'm older than almost everyone here and even 'mac' doesn't refer to our unseen relatives, friends and helpers as 'the dead'.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
  4. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Thank you for your summary, dear! I guess the only thing I would quibble with is your saying that these interactions aren't spiritual so we needn't any longer pray beforehand or "try the spirits." Nothing about ITC in any way changes the fact that all of reality is spiritual! I guess I might quibble, too, with your saying that these folks aren't "the dead." Of course they're "the dead"! Who else would they be? Our problem seems to be not the term so much, but the fact that until very recently we thought that death meant a final ending. As I say in The Fun of Dying, for most of us, death is the best time of our lives, so let's stop avoiding the term. Death is a good thing!

    Oh, and then there's the age wars ;-). When are you turning seventy, Mac? I'll bet I'll be getting there sooner. Let's have this showdown, once and for all!
     
  5. mac

    mac host

    You're welcome to my summary but it was intended more for those who are less experienced....

    Prayer for what, to whom is what I asked? Why would you pray for help when you already know that all is in hand to prevent all the potentially meddlesome spirits who might interfere with communication. Anyone experienced knows how they can, will and do interfere with mediumship. But ITC isn't mediumship and experimenters have declared they've got things sorted so why would there be anything to fear from a spirit masquerading as someone they're not? In mediumship it's a well-know approach to 'test the spirits' but why is there any need with ITC? The stations aren't able to be reached by 'low-level entities', are they? Or maybe I've misunderstood?

    How can the so-called dead actually be dead, without life? Our bodies are dead when our spirit has left them but we spirit-individuals aren't. I'm sure you know the saying "You can't die for the life of you." Do you think that our unseen friends and relatives see themselves as 'dead'?
    'mac' will continue to eschew those words even if others won't join him. I'm old but not that old I can't change. ;)

    As for your quibling about what you claim I said , viz "...these interactions aren't spiritual so we needn't any longer pray beforehand ..." well I've looked and looked at my piece and I can't see those words anywhere in what I wrote! For accuracy please quote what I said, Roberta, rather than what you think I said.

    There's no age war and no need for a showdown but May 2017 will see my 70th. If I haven't shuffled off this mortal coil I'm planning on running again the Bristol 10K (our daughter's home city) in celebration! If I can get through another winter of training I should just about do it. After that who knows? Three score and ten may be all I'll get but maybe four score years so I can observe the changes that have been promised.

    D'ya reckon?
    ;)
     
  6. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    You're right, Mac, in saying that the dead themselves are loath to use the word "dead," but I agree with Roberta on this point. Firstly, it's somewhat clumsy to say "those we used to think were dead," "those in Spirit," "those on the other side of the veil," etc. The golden rule of writing is to be as concise as possible--not that I should talk, being somewhat wordy myself--but why use a phrase when a single word will do? Moreover, the problem is not really the word "dead." It's rather the connotations we associate with that term that are problematic.

    And to quote Jo Rowling, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself." ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2016
  7. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    I do personally say a gratitude prayer before starting usually, and then when I contact a specific person, I ask a couple of verification questions to confirm their identity. I don't think either practice is really crucial to the process, and I have skipped them in the past with no ill results; it's something that I do more out of habit than anything else--in the past, I have worked with a pendulum at times, and it is essential to be cautious in that sort of situation. Such caution is likely not needed when connecting to the Stations, but I figure it certainly can't hurt the process.
     
  8. mac

    mac host

    Yes of course our discarnate friends eschew the term in much the same way as I. And of course the connotations with 'the dead' are the problem! If you think the phrase "those we used to think were dead" is clumsy, well so do I! So let's find something better!

    Similar problems led to new names being found for 'spastic', 'homo', 'dyke' 'black' etc. There were negative associations with those words and they were changed to something different. In a similar way there are negative associations with 'the dead'. I contend we could, and should, find alternatives. (alternates if you prefer American English!)

    Language use is not static - not without life, not dead - not carved in stone and not immutable. Words get coined. Meanings and usage change. Rules don't exist when we're speaking. We speak how we wish, we say what we choose. What we say can, and does, keep changing. Rules aren't actually rules but are guides to current or conventioal use. We don't adhere to rules when we speak. We can use a word, or words, in ways different from, even opposite to, conventional usage. We can, and we do, coin words when that's helpful or when we choose for whatever other reason.

    I wouldn't want to go from two words - however inappropriate and inaccurate! - to using more words. Instead I usually write 'discarnate' both in the sense of a noun and of an adjective. I'm comfortable with that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
  9. mac

    mac host

    It can't hurt the process either by making the sign of the cross, kissing your rosary or twirling a prayer wheel. But neither do any of them do anything positive other than - perhaps - providing focus or a prop for the individual or group. I suggest it's time that communication is modernised and that mumbo-jumbo is discontinued.

    In my earlier piece I referred to the assurance given that 'low-level-entites' can not interfere with communication so protection through prayer is being sought against what? It was only in connection with ITC through the stations that I made the points I did.
     
  10. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    I do agree whole-heartedly that communication with the dead should be demystified, and I believe that electronic communication is the best means of doing so. But if those unnecessary actions make one feel more secure during communication sessions with the Stations, then I would encourage their use. Of course, religious rituals, be they traditional or new-age, are of little import, but I do believe it is important that the earthly experimenter is in the right frame of mind to receive communications. This may relate a bit to the questions you were posing regarding an organic component recently. I may have been a bit hasty in suggesting that such a component doesn't exist.

    In a message from Sonia Rinaldi, which I received earlier today through Craig, she recommended that I leave the gibberish playing without while I'm asking my questions for the Brazilian Station--I have been pausing it up to this point. Her reasoning was that the dead seem to be somehow dependent on our voices when forming their responses; I've noticed that the majority of my responses from the North American Station do come immediately after I stop recording my own voice, and I've also noted that if I'm tired or distracted, I'll get fewer answers. Moreover, if one leaves the gibberish playing without asking any questions for a relatively long period of time--let's say five minutes--those at the Station will not attempt to say anything in that time, possibly, I'm now theorizing, because they are unable to do so.
     
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    I'll agree that "discarnate" is an excellent substitution for "dead"--concision typically prefers Anglo-Saxon words though--and that its connotations are much more accurate when describing the state of those in Spirit than are the connotations of "dead." But for me, there is a larger issue at stake: we have to stop the near-universal narrative that death is bad, and that it is the end of individual existence. Death is a mere moment of an eternal journey, and it is no more significant than a person on a road trip deciding to switch cars. I can see both sides of this issue though, and my opinion is not as strong as it likely seems.

    This same sort of conundrum also appeared around the identity of Jesus though. The oldest members of Afterlife Forums--I'm not sure if you had joined yet, Mac--will recall that in the beginning, we used to refer to Jesus here by His aramaic name, Yeshua. Why? Because the Christians had ruined the name "Jesus" with inaccurate connotations of a judgmental savior figure. Moreover, "Jesus" is nothing like the original name. (His name in English would actually be Joshua, which is much closer to Yeshua, if one wishes to get technical about it.) So, the argument was made that this Aramaic name would more accurately represent Him. Roberta even used the name "Yeshua" throughout her first edition of The Fun of Dying. Eventually though, we came to realize that we needn't avoid those old, outdated connotations; we needed to confront and disprove them, and the best way to do that was to reclaim Jesus' name as it appears in common usage. New editions of The Fun of Dying use Jesus, as does Roberta's Liberating Jesus--a name which those in Spirit picked out. I think the same argument can be made for "dead" and "dying."
     
  12. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Oy. For me it's August. You win, dear ;-).
     
  13. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Andrew, you always say things better than I ever could! So, Ditto to all that you say here. Then another few thoughts:

    I think that the way we each refer to the dead is a matter of preference. I personally don't like mincing words - it's the writer in me, I guess - and I have grown to dislike most of the mincing-words terms that people use for the dead. I also don't care for "crossing over" and its variations, so I just say "dying" or "transitioning" (I'm starting now not to like "transitioning," either). So now when I refer to people no longer in bodies I just say "the dead," or "people we used to think were dead," and the word "dying" trips right off my pen. I realize as I read what Andrew says above that I seem to want to demystify the word, since we can't get rid of it from the language and to try to avoid saying it makes it remain perhaps spooky or negative in some way. Once everyone is saying "dead" easily and with full understanding that the word's genuine definition is simply an improvement in the dead person's condition, the world is going to be a much happier place!
     
  14. mac

    mac host


    I'm assuming you mean August this year?

    I'd guess neither of us wants to be the winner in the old-age stakes, Roberta.
    :(

    You have told me several times in the past that you were the elder, Roberta. So it's August for your 70th? Bags I to be the first to wish you an advance 'Happy 70th Birthday' in case I'm not around (online!!) on the actual day. :)
    (if you'd care to disclose the exact date)

    Will there be cake?
    ;)
     
  15. mac

    mac host

    In terms of the way we speak, the way we write, we'll just have to go our individual ways.... And that's OK because in connection with the world of the spirit the actual words used are far less important than what they have to tell us. :)
     
  16. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Communication is all by thought there anyway, dear. My dear friend, Thomas, finds words to be frustratingly imprecise, now that he is used to thought-communication. Sometimes I re-listen to his communication through Leslie Flint as Thomas Jefferson, who was arguably among the best wordsmiths who ever lived, yet he complains there that communicating through an ectoplasm voicebox is frustratingly imprecise. "Words, words, words, and none of them what you want to say!" Whenever I hear him say that, I smile.
     
  17. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Oh my dear, I love getting old! I'm disappointed not to be older than you are. This is like a race, isn't it? We all know now where we're going, and I wouldn't be young again for all the money in the world! I will turn 70 on August 14th. Thank you for your birthday wishes!
     
  18. mac

    mac host

    It's not the communication 'over there' that's the problem, Roberta. It's the way we have to do it here that causes the difficulties. I concur with Thomas. Our spoken and written words can be clumsy and imprecise but they're all we have to convey our thoughts, ideas, feelings. The better we try to use them the smaller the chance of frustration and misunderstanding. We must not give in to loose or dated usage when they don't do what we want them to.

    Life incarnate often presents experiences not obtainable in the higher realms. It's from those that so much of our spiritual progression is made. The difficulties found in human communication is simply one of those experiences.
     
  19. mac

    mac host

    There's no race as far as I'm concerned, Roberta.

    You will be young again, of course, and money will not figure in that equation. I find one of the apparently saddest things is that next-time-around we may have lost sight of all we presently know. But from our vantage point after we've passed over we'll likely see it's not sad at all....
    ;)
     
  20. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    I agree, Roberta! In the afterlife literature from the early 20th Century, the dead themselves generally avoid the term "death," but I don't much care for their terminology either. Some say, "When I came out [to this country]..." or "When I underwent the change...;" I've even heard, "When I was borne unto the shore of immortality..."--even the dead can't seem to find a succinct way to describe the transition in earthly language.
     

Share This Page