Author: Cesidio
Tallini (---.ny5030.east.verizon.net)
Date: 02-06-05
09:23
Friends,
All I wish to add to this
discussion is this: when it is raining, and someone is outside
and getting the rain in his face, you don't ask that person
whether he "believes" it is raining. You KNOW that, just as
much as the person that is out there getting wet. You know
that, not because your hair is wet, but based on something
called human experience, something only the insane would
deny.
Well, I am an Indigo, a 42-year-old Indigo. I was
an Indigo long before Lee Carroll and Jan Tober's book, "The
Indigo Children." I don't "believe" I'm an Indigo: my hair is
all wet with it! Actually, if I denied it, I would be
deceiving you.
So the situation is like this: 1) Some
people's hair is getting wet, and they are mentioning it, and
they may be few, just as other gifted human beings are few; 2)
Some people don't know what having wet hair is like, and since
they generally distrust human beings, they assume that they
are lieing; 3) Some people choose to believe that the people
who mentioning the wet hair must be experiencing something,
either because they trust human beings more, or because
similar situations have occurred to them (some of us did feel
sad when some person passed away, while others that even knew
that person couldn't have cared any less, so there are some
things you feel or perceive more than other people); 4) Some
people choose to believe, and since they see that many others
also believe, they try to make money off of it; 5) Finally,
some people choose not to believe, and since they noticed that
there are plenty of people like them as well, they attempt to
make money off of them too.
You cannot "prove" that
JFK's death was sad; if you were alive at that time, and
remember the moment, you either felt that way, or you didn't.
One needs to add that even those of us most sensitive don't
always feel sad when somebody passes away, so we cannot
generalise either.
This is basically what Lorie is
asking people to do here when she says that the James Randi
Educational Foundation, and similar ones, have millions of
dollars if you can prove you get sad when people die. Well, I
do Lorie, believe it or not!, but I can't say I felt sad when
Arafat died, so what exactly are you trying to measure here?
Are you trying to measure highly predictable physical
phenomena, like the speed and path of a projectile, or less
easy and straightforward things, such as human perception?
Also, are you really trying to study this, and you have an
open mind to begin with, or are you just trying to deny the
existence of a whole range of human phenomena, only trying to
re-affirm your world view? This is hardly a scientific way of
handling things. It is a BIASED way of handling
things.
Lorie does not understand that since we are
measuring human beings, bias, as in all psychological
experiments, is inevitable, and the most productive attitude
is "You are innocent until proven guilty," rather than "You
are guilty, until proven innocent." I am innocent Lorie, and
guileless, yet you are only just trying to prove the opposite!
How can you say that you are really trying to study these
things, when you are not? Since I last spoke to Lorie about
these things, in fact, I have decided to join the American
Society for Psychical Research (http://www.aspr.com). This
organisation will definitely study this Indigo phenomena if
given half a chance, but I have severe doubts that the James
Randi Educational Foundation ever will.
Anyway,
"Indigo" was a really beautiful movie, and I say this also
from experience, and I recommend you pre-order the DVD from
Amazon.com if you can. The same thing that happened to that
girl in the movie, happened to me in the Fall of 1984, on a
day I'll never forget.
Is it more dangerous to tell
your child that they can develop these abilities, or what
Steven Spielberg is doing: telling children all over the world
that if their name ends with a vowel, they will never be
anything but a mafioso? While the former approach can place a
heavy burden on children, I think the latter approach is far
more dangerous. It is more dangerous to tell children what
they can't do, rather than telling them what they can; the
former is about limits imposed by others, while the latter is
about limits imposed only by yourself and your own
abilities.
Cesidio Tallini
| |
