Rocking on the Astral Plane!


So I did my first two self-hypnosis sessions today. The first one was plain old hypnosis, the deep measured breaths, focusing on areas of the body and having them relax, imagining a relaxing place, breathing out tension and worried thoughts, etc. The stuff really works, you do come away feeling renewed, calm, relaxed, and wanting to take on tasks.

Then I did a 35 minute session called Astral Projection Beach Induction. Preceding it is a three minute how-to and what-not-to and warns against traveling to dark places and such things. One can reason as they want for how to interpret that. One could say that since you are, to a certain extent, relinquishing a certain amount of control that one could run the risk of a bad experience. Or, if you believe in things as souls and spirits (as I do), that you could get trapped in a bad place in the spirit world.

Although I do believe in soul and spirit, that doesn’t necessarily mean I believe in astral projection. I am not certain as to the separation of spirit or soul from the body prior to death’s sundering. There has been many a mystic who have claimed to have spirit journeys, but the nature of the claim makes its verification difficult to say the least. Difficult without doing it yourself and seeing what’s up. And even there, well I’ll just see.

It was pretty intense even though I was having problems projecting or creating images. It was either fuzzy or swapped out of my control a lot. I got some handle on it and did achieve a level of calm(?). The speaker (the guy on the tape who takes a little getting used to – he sounds just a tad like Agent Smith  Hugo-Weaving-Agent-Smith-The-Matrix from The Matrix in tone and delivery, creepy right?) tells you at one point to make contact with your Guardian Angel and to picture it/him/her as a sourceless point of brilliant, white light that bathes you. That is to be your protector as you travel in the spirit world.


I don’t know if it is merely the white light that keeps you from “bad trippin'” or the device itself, or, in fact, a Guardian Angel. Agent Smith let’s you know that you can refer to the “guardian angel” in some other terms. That’s to keep the New Agers in the loop I guess as they may be put off by something as religious sounding (I think Catholic sounding, but I could be wrong) as a Guardian Angel.

I didn’t achieve lift-off. It was my first time and you’re spending probably too much concentration on the technique to achieve the necessary level of focus or clarity. I think I may have “shimmered” and I certainly felt removed from the room I was in, but who knows what that is? One can experience the same sort of thing from an afternoon nap and we don’t consider that out of the ordinary.

Like I mentioned before, it is not entirely relevant whether you do in fact go on a spirit journey or achieve the astral plane (whatever that is) but that you achieve a level of relaxation and mental focus that you think you are on the astral plane. Eventually I would love to incorporate this into writing after I attain a level of mastery and control. I think it could do wonders to actually be able to step into your created world and experience that level of intimacy with it.

One of the things one has to keep in mind when doing this is to get in a comfortable position THAT WILL STAY THAT WAY! Twice I began my session in a certain position that felt good when I began but then became bothersome ten minutes later.


5 responses to “Rocking on the Astral Plane!

  • taichiwawa

    Heh! The Matrix trilogy was on IFC last night. I only half-watched the first one while half-(re)reading a book, Gödel’s Proof, by Ernest Nagel and James Newman. It all seemed related somehow. One of Gödel’s theorems is that the consistency of any system of logical connections large enough to encompass the whole field of mathematics cannot be formally proven with the rules of inference governing the system. Inasmuch as axiomatic reasoning is considered analogous to the major part of human understanding, what does this say about what we think we know?

    • bensira587

      If I am understanding you correctly…

      Would this not be the same that can be said of metaphysical axioms just as well? Meaning that the consistency of any metaphysical system (one that aims to encompass Being as such, i.e., everything) cannot be proven by the rules of inference that govern the system – those being the “assumptions” that underlie the metaphysical system itself.

      For instance, one of the rules that underlie any system of metaphysics is some notion of lawfulness or order and, two, that man can grasp such a thing. If not, there is no sense in the subject even being broached. To even say there is no such order or to say man cannot grasp such a thing is 1. to grasp some such deficiency in causality, meaning it presupposes what is being denied, 2. that something objective is possible to say of reality. Even such a basic category as reality or existence cannot be denied without assuming its existence.

      Hence the governing rules (to use that phraseology) are outside the sphere. The governor is not subject to that which it governs.

      Sounds tight to me. If I understand it correctly…

      Now, how it relates to what we think we know. I think metaphysics fits into this rather well. There are some concepts that must be true (or, if you prefer, that we cannot help but to take as given) if we are to consider the subject at all. Aristotle covered these. These are pretty few and their influence is diffusive as you move up the philosophical ladder, so to speak.

      What I mean by this is the following – and I have a pretty good example. I was always confused when I would talk to Thomists (of whom, regrettably, I had only approached in history of philosophy summaries) because they being Thomists and I being (at the time) a Randian we used commonly the same concepts (the same in name at least). For Rand such a concept as Existence entailed the denial of God. It went Existence (can’t get past that one!) Identity (a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not) and causality is merely the law of Identity applied to motion, ergo, no God. Existence has primacy over consciousness (quite true, I cannot will my dog to become a monkey, nor many another thing) therefore the belief in God is the primacy of consciousness which, empirically by observation (of turtles, man, and the platypus) we know is not true. Therefore no God.

      God is removed by category – a false category – because while the concept of consciousness is a proper starting point (among others prior to it) to put the concept of God in with the consciousness of a chicken is not to address the nature of the being being considered. That, of itself, does not prove God, or a god, but merely that such semantics don’t touch the debate, it merely shunts the user of such categories from the possibility of inquiry. If it doesn’t fit the logic structure and definitions, it is merely out.

      Thus the Thomists affirmed all the same metaphysical concepts as I following Aristotle but obviously reaching much different conclusions.

      Likewise the modern Naturalists (many of whom are the current New Atheists) use the limited scope of the sciences to deny all sorts of things as superstitions: mind, free will, God, soul (even the Aristotelean or Greek notion) spirit. The natural word as capable of being measured (even in theory) is the sole sum of reality. And still further, for some, the measurements are the reality. Thus love is merely the chemical reaction that occurs in the physical brain.

      Those are just examples.

      So I would say we should be very careful about what we think we know! Especially when extrapolating way beyond our perceptual grasp. Best to follow Aristotle, he knew how to lay down axioms that did their job and he didn’t try to load them with more than they were meant to bear.

      I noted a few months ago (because I have been exhuming my former Randian beliefs for autopsy) a piece of biographical information about Rand that relates to her system (and it is about as tight as The Matrix). When she was 9, she claimed, she decided she was an atheist because she found the concept of God to be degrading to Man. If there was a God, then man was not at the top, he was not the highest form (don’t know if she ever considered higher aliens…) of existence. I don’t know why that would be degrading, seems flattering rather.

      But she rarely (maybe a total of 6 sentences can even be found touching on it at all) spoke of evolution and it has been repeated that she found the possibility of its truth to be disturbing. To which I agree if evolution is taken in the purely naturalist light. You can’t find the concept of God to be degrading but be uplifted at the notion of being a sophisticated monkey, or, as a character on South Park called it, the product of a retarded fish-frog having butt-sex with another retarded fish-frog.

      As for myself, if there be no God, then we need some aliens to have evolution (as it relates to man) a coherent explanation. And when I say coherent I mean holistically.

      So, again, if I understood you, I would say we need to tread carefully. I am not, however, a fan of the eternal skeptic attitude. I have quelled my thirst for 100% certainty on all things. But some things we can know and some things by different means.

      As an aside: I love the first Matrix movie. Second one was ok if they needed to do a second one. The third was crapola.

  • taichiwawa

    My ruminations on the subject did not extend down all the avenues of thought you have touched on (by the way, nicely done!) I was primarily thinking more narrowly about our current model of consciousness. We like to believe we can program a mechanical device and somehow give it true sentience. But, given the demonstrated shortcomings of a purely mathematical system, however comprehensive, we are left with a missing component that must be conceptually located — where? — Outside the matrix, as it were. For individuals, this is the self, which I don’t think we can program into a machine because a machine can only arrange numbers according to instructions [see: Searle’s Chinese Room]. As for the cosmos itself . . . ?

    Yes, I know, I tend to be cryptic. I lean more toward the poetic than the scientific because as “gee-whiz-wonderful” as science can be, the higher truth is in the poetic (or perhaps, spiritual) — again, somehow outside, but simultaneously residing within a matrix of mathematically ordered material structure. At least as I see it.

    • bensira587

      Sometimes you can be cryptic but not this time, I am simply not familiar with Godel (as well as inserting the umlaut character). So I merely inferred from what you wrote.

      Our current model of consciousness is actually the one aspect I hadn’t considered. And I agree with everything you said above. I don’t really have any answers in the areas. I just know most of the current answers are wrong. I do not know what precisely it is, but I do know what it is not.

      Is it not strange that the conception of God and our own selves occupy the same epistemological status?

      One you touched on. People, especially science and science fiction people, talk a lot of the Singularity. These rest on an incorrect model not only of human consciousness but of consciousness itself and even the separate means of consciousness.

      A camera does not “see” and microphone does not “hear”. We have not come near anything like consciousness. And it has nothing to do with computing speed, or the sensitivity of the materials or anything technological. Just as the consciousness of salmon and the consciousness of man are differences in kind, so too is a computer and a man. That you can get one to mimic responses or to beat you at chess or sort your mail, or any of a million other jobs, does not mean it is conscious.

      And I agree. Where is that missing component?

      I love a science fiction story with sentient robots and the like, such as The Terminator. But the advent of a singularity happening anywhere near the locus of our current understanding or model is laughable.

      There are computers that can “learn”, that is they are given algorithms within strict parameters that can expand, again within strict parameters, information that they are given, again within strict parameters and only by the native tongue (ones and zeroes) and senses (voltage or no voltage) they are programmed with. Such a thing stands as smart as a rock next to my dog (who is pretty stupid) who has figured out all on his own that it is easier for him to lick his ass if he props himself up against the ottoman. If we thought about it in terms of evolution, my dog lies at the end of time, final man, the computer hasn’t crawled out of the primordial ooze.

      The model is wrong. But the math is not.

      I think I reached babble…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: