As a veteran agent, I've been pitched works that have been allegedly channeled by many dozens of the usual and unusual suspects, Whereas other works are apparently drawn from the writer's own experiences and/or research. Where do you guys stand? Jeff
Wow, that is very interesting Brian. But I pose this question: can a person really be 'unconscious' while speaking on this level-the physical plane? Surely there must be some conscious awareness necessary to formulate words with appropriate sounds to that energtic field?
I propose to you, that yes, consciousness can be altered and awareness of this physical plane be lost-in order to perceive the upper planes. I have done that. I lost hearing from this level and was jolted a bit when I came to with the 'sound' of my bathroom faucet dripping. While in that heavenly state however, I could not speak. I just tried to absorb the most wonderful thing I have ever experienced. Afterward, after coming back to this physical awareness, I could talk about it-but not right away.... I kept it to myself for a while, as it was very sacred and pure. Words actually felt like mud thrown on top of a white flower when first I tried to express about it. Took me a little time....
I think it maybe helpful to illustrate how unconscious channeling works.
Consider the mind like computer, and the experiential soul the operating system.
Channeling would be akin to accessing an information stream on the internet.
An unconscious channeler literally "goes under", its existential soul swept aside to make room for another expression of intelligence to take the reigns of material functioning.
This is akin to plugging in and functioning with a completely foreign operating system, and observing it in a passive trance/sleep like state.
It is very different to conduct conscious channeling, which is more akin to joining an "intranet", obtaining private content and then allowing the material to germinate in the recesses of consciousness to generate new creative expression.
I see Brian, well then it looks to me like I will never be allowing anyone else to drive my 'car'! Or else I might get mixed up as to 'who' the car owner is! LOL!
[metaphysically speaking -that is!]
Sorry, but for me, the internet/intranet analogy just does not hold up. "Intranet" communications can be just as prey to unconscious agendas, urges, and dysfunctions as are the "internet" communications (metaphorically speaking). The term "new creative expression" intrigues me...most channelers that I have met are the most uncreative people I know. They wouldn't know how to enact a truly creative idea if they fell over it. Channeling is the LEAST effective thing you can do to foster creativity (unless you mean you want to become more creative at self-deception and in deceiving others).
Hi Sharon, I understand your position.
Perhaps you may wish to reflect upon the following spiritual principle for channeling and creativity based on the Law of Measure for Measure:
"One attracts the reciprocal of which they stream".
Simply stated those that focus on deception and fear empower energies of such, and are most apt to bind with such in their creative undertakings.
As far as your contention on creativity, it is helpful to be mindful that most individuals are passively channeling with energetic impressions from others, the collective unconscious, and reciprocal energy to that which they stream.
All are connected, there is no opting out. As King Soloman wrote:
"There is nothing new under the Sun."
All creativity is an amalgamation of personalized representations of external stimuli.
Ingenuity should remain a humbling and spiritually affirming experience. A creative sort's ego should be checked by the responsibility to hold true to the integrity of their craft.
Definitely agree, but with a similar expression; Like attracts like. That is why I feel we channel ourselves! Whether our good selves or our lesser selves-we are walking/talking advertisements of our many selves all the time. We just call them personality aspects, or by some exalted aspect with names when we feel it comes from spirit. Here again, I feel people have a massive inferiority complex disorder in holding to the belief: that higher wisdom has to come from someone else-embodied on not embodied...
Brian, I understand what you're saying about those who are focused on fear and deception will attract that into their "creative undertakings". However, I think it's the case that many "channelers" don't realize they are practicing deception. They THINK it is real and pure and useful. Many do not consciously try to deceive people (though some do, and I can think of several notorious examples). Even if they have good intentions, they are highly vulnerable to self-deception.Self-deception is not always about fear; it can often be about wanting to do something good, or believing that something is good when it isn't.
I also understand what you are saying about creativity--the idea of "nothing new under the sun"--and how ingenuity results from new mixings of old brews. This may be true, but it is not the whole story. Creativity is not something that just happens. It's actually a discipline; it actually requires work and dedication and commitment. As you say, it also requires humility. Channeling spirit entities does not lead to any of that...it makes the channeler THINK he/she is onto something new and profound, but most times they are just tapping into the most superficial (and largely useless) aspects of the collective unconscious and deluding themselves that this is being creative.
As a writer and editor, I teach creative writing. I help people who have never written before to find their unique writer's voice. I give them a safe place to begin nurturing literary creativity. And believe me, none of this has anything to do with channeling some entity.
I guess we can agree to disagree on how creativity works. I contend that all individuals are channeling off of the influences in their circle of influence, some passively others actively.
I do not believe one can honestly separate these variables from the creative process, as all true creativity requires some form of entering a process of nullification of self in order to give birth in thought to something new.
Regarding your apparent distain for the substance and character of "inspired" material and their authors, I feel it is unfair to paint a broad brush about anyone, in any field of expertise.
In the middle ages, people held in distain playwrights and their players, still their were many of fine moral discipline and constitution.
People are apt to fear what they do not understand, and that is understandable. My objection begins where that ignorance bleeds into prejudice.
There is a long history for inspired authors and their works offering our world such classics as the Bible, the Koran, much of the New Testament etc. Many of the most influential works that have contributed to civilization were inspired works by authors of distinction and of uncanny character.
I feel that in this day and age we should all know better than to sow seeds of prejudice by painting broad strokes with declarations about processes most do not really understand, and upon untold authors that have not committed any crime other than being "different".
Yes, there are charlatans and misguided sorts, but it is criminal and savagely discount the precious few who are exceptionally gifted visionaries and righteous in character as well, with one fail stroke.
Ahhh, I was waiting for someone to bring up sacred scriptures as examples of "inspired" (and/or "channeled works"). I had thought of bringing it up myself, but that topic is an entirely different field of discussion that has nothing to do with being on a writing site and such a historical and theological discussion would be out of place here.Although religious studies and theology are hugely important fields of endeavour and study, the nature of "inspired" sacred texts cannot begin to be adequately discussed without a lot of historical analysis involving context, communities of reception, hermeneutics, redactions, etc. (known as the use of the historical-critical method of looking at scriptures) which would bore the pants off most people in this forum (but which nevertheless can shed a lot of light on some of the issues we've been talking about).
I don't "fear" channelers--why would one fear something that is so ineffectual in making any kind of difference to anything? Do I have a "bias" against channeling? It's obvious that I do; I've been very open about that in this discussion. But it's not just based only on a subjective opinion, but also on taking a long look at what channelers claim to do and then using critical thinking skills to evaluate their claims.
I think it's a bit superficial to fit "channelers" into the same category as misunderstood playwrights and other artists. Neither do I think that the frequently superficial fruits of channeling can be used as a shield for someone claiming to be "just different".
I appreciate and respect your viewpoint, Brian (I like your surname and its meaning, by the way), but as you say, you and I will have to agree to disagree about many aspects regarding this topic. And that's OK...if everyone always were to agree about everything in a forum, there wouldn't be any interesting discussions at all.
Well, I can say that I have gathered from this discussion that at its crux you have a unique definition for "channeling" that you believe plays no role in creative endeavors.
I maintain a broader definition of "channeling", one that is part of the very ebb and flow of all creative processes.
I deduce from your words that you are learned enough to recognize that my definition is consistent with what you will find in hermetic works and the philosophies on spirit in ancient civilizations.
I believe that research in modern advances in AI has only served to confirm that the ingenuity of the human spirit and how its' processes cannot be deconstructed or artificially replicated.
Perhaps many are more comfortable believing they are isolated in their thoughts and aspirations, as a learned spiritualist, I simply have witnessed too much to lend credence to cognitive-behaviouralistic models that do not account for the influx of the various tiers of spirit.
I thank you for sharing your experience and insights, and look forward to connecting again in the future in the spirit of friendship and shared discovery.
The problem I see with the unconscious/conscious channeling dichotomy is that very often much of what a person processes in his/her thoughts as being "conscious" is in fact permeated with large elements of unconscious material. So a conscious "channeler" would have to be really good at discernment to tell the difference between rationalizing what he/she thinks is truly conscious and information that IS truly conscious (i.e., devoid of unconscious "stuff") in all its aspects--which is almost an impossible task. So a "conscious" channeler may appear to have more control over what he/she is channeling, but there is no guarantee that what he/she is channeling is valid for anyone other than himself/herself. I highly recommend reading the book "Straw Dogs" by the London School of Economics professor emeritus of European and Political Philosophy, John Gray. Not that European political philosophy has anything to do with channeling, but Gray does make a very strong case that over 90% of what we think is fully conscious in our thoughts and in our choices is in fact driven by largely unconscious urges, and that we are not the rational beings we think we are. Nor are we as intuitive as we think we are in aiming to perceive "higher realms". No, he is not just parrotting Freud; rather, he brings attention to the human propensity for self-deception. I would view a so-called "conscious" channeler who claims to be sorting out a "download" of information from "spirit" as being highly vulnerable to self-deception and being as much in the throes of subconscious and unconscious material as the so-called "unconscious" channeler would be. In my view, if you want to "channel" for your own benefit as a way that you think will help you access your own higher wisdom and use it to guide your own life, sure, go for it. Just don't go around claiming to others that you are speaking on behalf of some transcendent source and that the "wisdom" you've received is to be a revelation to others from some disembodied entity. To do so, in my opinion, is an act of spiritual hubris.To me, a "channeler" who charges money for his/her revelations is not to be trusted (and that includes writing books about it.)
I like your analytical bridge here Sharon! Though I feel that the 'discernment' is a good thing, and part of our growth on this physical level.
I also agree that conscious thoughts are mixed up with unconscious thoughts and this tossed salad of mixed thoughts will continue to exist as long as we are; spirit-in -form=duality.