There is an old expression that names have power, and many fictional references (Ursula K. le Guin for example) that magicians do magic via possession of the "true names" of things.

Beyond the trivial example of a name as a personal cue (someone alling "Hey Tom!" will turn my head on the street) can anyone comment on this?

My stance is that names offer a handle for us to use a certain part of our neurology on. There is a "power", but I believe that it is an "intra" power not an "inter" power. By "intra" I mean within one's own neurology. Having a name for something cues my neurology to notice it, and stabilizes its existence for/to me. As my neurology supports my world, then for sure names have power >>in<< my world. By "inter" I mean the process running the other way. Another Stein (no relative) said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and I concur.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Answers

One of my impressions has been that names contain an "energy signature" (wave form pattern), that can be divined both internally and externally, and it is the power of that energy that can often impact/ shift the material world.

A good friend, Jeannine, and I were discussing Sunday evening a story about someone who deflected bullets shot at them, by invoking the words (to wit)...

"Kadoish, Kadoish, Kadoish, Adonai, Sabayoth."

...(please forgive lousy spelling... it's the sound and intent that's important).

Rather think that the "magic words" referred to in so many ancient texts, were there for a reason. And were viewed as "words of power."

Diane

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

I was going to bring this up if you hadn't, Tom. I think we need to distinguish proper name/nouns from all other naming. The special case situation is one where you confront the real thing. "A tree" becomes "this specific tree"---"Fred", "Fred meet Tom", "Tom, Fred." But most things in our world don't have proper names so we use a second or third level generalization sort of noun---Maple Tree,condor, forest,etc.

Yet at an action level we deal with special case unique conditions specific individuals, this maple tree--fred, that condor---different and unique in this space and time. I always thought it the great falicy of science, the control group isn't really identical to the experimental we just pretend it is.

> > >The hypothesis is that "explanations become more complete (true?) as they evolve to become articulated in > terms of process as opposed to entities". > > The drive for a unified field therory (gut)?

No - not a comprehensive aim. More of a sense that understanding proceeds from gross to more detailed levels. An explanation of a surface phenomena should be congruent and traceable to an explanation of the underlying phenomena --- ad infinitum. So if you have but a shallow explanation, you will find yourself hitting the need for "faith" quite quickly.

mmmmm...I'm lost......Names do not confer power, not even true proper names---

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000

Thanks Diane. Those words sound familiar - can you say more?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Dave - I've always wondered about the control group choice as well, but sometimes the resolution goes up when we are only looking for differences that make a difference. You've run into the engineering trick where you take two coarse-threaded items and produce a difference measurement? Essentially with two different pitch rods you set it up so that as you screw in one rod, the motion unscrews the other. The resulting movement will be the difference between the pitches which can allow for much finer resolution. I'm wondering if the same doesn't hold for selecting control and action groups -- looking for differences between...

With regard to names - I had the impression that names were part of languaging and therefore part of behaviour that coordinated other's behaviour (social context). Proper names would simply be an instance of auditory "pointing". Other names are also examples of pointing that refer to prototypical classes (trees, cats, birds,...).

The word "power" like "energy" is something that becomes slippery when imported out of it's physics context. There's a book called "Plastic Words : The Tyranny of a Modular Language" by Uwe Porksen that talks of how words are taken into a scientific context and used for a very specific meaning, then retrieved and brought back into the vernacular but with an "aura" of special authority. I'm assuming that you don't mean power in the (m x v x v x t) [mass times velocity squared times time] use of the word - and so are metaphorically referring to its capacity to influence.

In that case I think that the "power" of a name is resident in the neurology and physical being of the person you're addressing. There's the aforementioned example of using a person's proper name. The metaphor of "pushing someone's buttons" is usually referring to combining names of things in a derogatory sense. Swearing at someone in a language they don't know has a radically different effect than swearing at them in a language they do coordinate around... In a pragmatic sense knowing "their" words does confer power upon you to initiate behaviours on their part.

So I'm missing your point about names not confering power. Can you elaborate?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Okay, I'll pitch in...

Names, proper names nor nouns actually have power, in and of themselves. I agree with Diane, that the "name" seems to have a wave pattern which the subject responds to and identifies itself with, but in addition, if the name is vocalized, the strength of the "wave pattern" seems to dramatically increase.

Now of course, the subject cannot hear the vocalized name. So does the increase come from the speaker actually saying the word aloud, or is there a heterodyne effect between the thought and the word?

Also, the "name" seems to be what the subject believes their name is. I know a woman who has and uses 7 - 10 different names, none of them her "real name", for this very purpose. If someone paranormally "calls" her, they may target her image, but not her name.

So it seems the "name" presents a clear and precise target, which may or may not be aquired depending on the focus and skill of the practicioner.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Sometimes I feel like Alice... I can read the words and yet I can't put together a picture of what is being said.

When we use the word "thought" we seem to be talking about it as if it were a separate entity from the processes going on in the "thinker".

I know that I can look at someone and say to myself "They are thinking." Yet are there these separate products of thinking called thoughts? When a chicken is "laying" she produces an egg. So I can think of "laying" as a making behaviour. The product of "thinking" has always seemed to me to be more thinking or otherwise some other overt behaving, which is indistinguishable from other overt behaving. So I think of "thinking" as a being verb as opposed to a making verb.

Can anyone elucidate how I would recognize a "thought"? I know how to recognize sound waves (as rarifications and compressions of an acoustic medium) or electromagnetic waves. I had always thought that (other than the past tense use I just used it for) that the term "thought" was just a convenient reification or nounifying or thing-ifying of the process or state of thinking --- a metaphorical or grammatical manipulation of the verb "to think". But it seems to be being used as if it were a "thing".

Can anyone elaborate?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Tom,

Sounds like you'd need to look into brain wave pattern studies, et. al... alpha, delta theta, etc.

As an off shoot to "Word Power" think there was some interesting research done by either Stan Tennon or ? Winter in the sacred geometry arena. (They have a rivalry going). Humm. Where is that? Maybe Gregg Bradon will have links.

Always kind'a "thought" that our brains are either in transmission mode, i.e. thinking outer-directed thoughts (electic energy) or in receiving mode, i.e. intuition and inspiration (magnetic energy), and depending upon ones right or left brain persuasion.

Have a hard time focusing on the physics of neurology, because it seems so limiting and lopsided.

Diane

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Sorry... quick sacred geometry links...

Stan Tenen, Meru Foundation
http://www.meru.org

Dan Winter
http://www.danwinter.com

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

I know that I can look at someone and say to myself "They are thinking." Yet are there these separate products of thinking called thoughts? When a chicken is "laying" she produces an egg. So I can think of "laying" as a making behaviour. The product of "thinking" has always seemed to me to be more thinking or otherwise some other overt behaving, which is indistinguishable from other overt behaving. So I think of "thinking" as a being verb as opposed to a making verb.

Tom, I am guessing that you mean covert behavior---this was one of the drivers for performance objectives in education, words like, "know", "understand", cannot be observed and tested, "solve, build,read",these can be seen and measured.

To your question, for sure not where Diane and Ken are coming from, if the outcome of successful thinking is a "thought", then it is a state of the nervous/hormonal/body/brain/mind system at that time. When you return to the "thought" I suppose that you put yourself back into a state that is similar though not identical to the one you were in when you registered the "thought".

If you are coupled to other systems then there could be resonance induced in the coupled systems. If through language or experience a similar state is induced in another and they experience the "thought" as a result of entering the state, then it seems to me that the thought has a reality not all that different from an egg.

I would presume that holding any word in mind requires placing the physical system in a particular condition, as would vocalization, writing, etc. Whether this can produce the effects that D and K assert I do not know. Do recall the sufi tale of walking on water.

Deeply learned are walking by a river and hear chanting from an island where lives a mad dervish. Recognizing the sounds as a misrendering of the "proper" chant for walking on water, the Deeply Learned, find a boat, row out to the island, find the dervish, explain to him what he is doing wrong, and then head back to shore feeling good about having maintained the purity of the teachings.

Just as they are getting out of the boat they hear again the misarticulated chant and looking up see the dirvish running across the the river. When he gets close to them he stops, thanks them for puting him on the true path, then turns and still chanting wrongly, trots back to his island.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

With regard to names - I had the impression that names were part of languaging and therefore part of behaviour that coordinated other's behaviour (social context). Proper names would simply be an instance of auditory "pointing". Other names are also examples of pointing that refer to prototypical classes (trees, cats, birds,...).

Tom, I have a feeling my point would be that there are no prototypical classes, that these are projections and filters that obscure. When I say maple tree I obscure the reality that all maples exist in a context, playing a unique genetics against time and the world, that each one is unique.(could have a proper name---"Fred"). We handle not knowing the tree's proper name by calling it "this tree" and dropping the disourse into real time/specific case.

As a general rule traits seem to distribute on a normal curve. When we language with 3rd level gengeralzed words, what you called "prototypical classes" we are either ignoring the distribution or we are pretending that it collapses into the mean. Both untrue distortions of what is. The really interesting aspects of phenomena are displayed 3+ standard deviations out, both ways.

The word "power" like "energy" is something that becomes slippery when imported out of it's physics context. I'm assuming that you don't mean power in the (m x v x v x t) [mass times velocity squared times time] use of the word - and so are metaphorically referring to its capacity to influence.

Mostly true for me, quite untrue for D and K. I'll not rule out a physics def. but admit to having some trouble with the heavy "prototypicalizing" that this results in. A word or name could function as a bias signal---would this be "power"? What do you make of infuluence the referent with out physical association with refferent?

In that case I think that the "power" of a name is resident in the neurology and physical being of the person you're addressing.

Not in the cases where it is being used as Ken and Diane mean. At the least it is a focusing/targeting devise. They are both talking of effects at a distance.

There's the aforementioned example of using a person's proper name. The metaphor of "pushing someone's buttons" is usually referring to combining names of things in a derogatory sense. Swearing at someone in a language they don't know has a radically different effect than swearing at them in a language they do coordinate around... In a pragmatic sense knowing "their" words does confer power upon you to initiate behaviours on their part.

No question but my question had to do with whether names, esp. "prototypical class" names really let us get closer to the neumena or just make us feel good because we have a cover for our profound ignorance.

So I'm missing your point about names not confering power.

It had to do with lazy mentation but lets see where the magic takes us, I would class ken's friend as wrong, but that's just me. I want to see rocks float, the other stuff I'd class as parlor tricks/paranoia. (thats a choise not an informed position---scares me as much as your latest NLP posts.)

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Tom, I have a feeling my point would be that there are no prototypical classes, that these are projections and filters that obscure. When I say maple tree I obscure the reality that all maples exist in a context, playing a unique genetics against time and the world, that each one is unique (could have a proper name---"Fred").

Hmmm for your statement to make sense there are certain presuppositions that inhere. Like the implications of "obscure" which seems to imply an objective reality that could be discernable. My take is that there are no classes (like colors for example) and that all these regularities are regularities of our structure. (There's evidence for this I can pull out for you in the study of the vision systems of other animals - different visual system - different visual world.) Our "living" is the constant cycling and recycling of these >internal< regularities which because of correspondences with the external world (entities which did not have "fitting" correspondences lose the evolutionary exam). So - there is no "obscuring" because there is "no-thing" to be seen. As we share these regularities with the other members of our social milieu (does the term archetypes ring a bell) it strikes me we confuse the "human" world with the "real" world. If the foregoing is apt, then there are just more or less useful explanatory entities. Looking at the redwood forests and not knowing about the fungi necessary at the root systems - an impoverished model.

"We handle not knowing the tree's proper name by calling it "this tree" and dropping the discourse into real time/specific case." Damn but these keeps hitting me as a petitio principii argument (begging the question - assuming the conclusion). If proper names are the domain of human social behavior then the tree doesn't have one except for people. The presupposition of this whole line of thought seems to be that naming is an extensive process -- because people respond to names then the remainder of the world will too.

"As a general rule traits seem to distribute on a normal curve. When we language with 3rd level generalized words, what you called "prototypical classes" we are either ignoring the distribution or we are pretending that it collapses into the mean. Both untrue distortions of what is." Actually I'll pull the reference for "prototypical classes" in the sense I'm trying to use it - there were four characteristics mentioned that bound the nature of these classes to our making sense of them in an embodied way - they're not just abstractions. One characteristic that I can recall off the top of my head is that along the abstraction spectrum of "Windsor chair - chair - furniture" the prototypical instance occurs at the highest level we can visualize a general case that other members of the class will belong to. We can visualize a prototypical "chair" of which a Windsor chair will be an elaborated instance. It is not possible to visualize a generic "furniture" element that would encompass tables - chairs - etc. I'll go pull the other three characteristics and post them, but they all inhere to the formative idea that we interact with the world from a physiology that has an ecological and evolutionary history - we're not readily constituted to correspond to criteria that didn't serve survival. On psychological tests people score notoriously poorly against statistical reasoning (greater weight to more recent samples, no intuitive processing of Baye's Theorem, etc) so I don't think we are modeling the world against the Normal distribution.

"The really interesting aspects of phenomena are displayed 3+ standard deviations out, both ways." Now this is an example of what we'd call sleight of mouth in NLP. The correspondence between rarity and novelty is neatly imported via sampling only 3+ deviations out. But I think the focus needs to be on our unconscious classification methods - not the frequency of occurrence in the "outside" world. If our neurology and physiology is suited for tribe associations of less than 300 persons, and also having a negligible impact on the environment -- then all the "reflexes" we have will be misplaced due to the "modern" world we've created. Maybe it comes to the same thing in the end --- that the "solutions" will be found on the fringes, but if what is fringe and what is "central" is a function of us, then there is hope of doing a foreground-background transpose and having the "solutions" evident to everyone as opposed to being obscure and requiring complicated explanations.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

"Mostly true for me, quite untrue for D and K. I'll not rule out a physics def. but admit to having some trouble with the heavy "prototypicalizing" that this results in."

So it comes back to defining terms. As near as I can tell there is the use of words where people are using the same words to establish rapport amongst themselves, an inter-relating use, and the use of words to construct representational models. These are radically different uses, as in the former I can say something like "Mesmer demonstrated that a hypnotist could have considerable power over another person." And could achieve strong agreement from people who couldn't articulate what they meant by either power or hypnotist (or hypnosis). However such agreement would nicely serve to distinguish that we're a group that shares certain sentiments about the sorts of things that are possible in the world - without having to be specific about any of the details.

"A word or name could function as a bias signal---would this be "power"?"" A bias-signal? What do you mean?

"What do you make of influence the referent with out physical association with efferent?" Snake oil. Always sets my bullshit detector wailing inside. I believe in Clarke's Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.) I have not ever encountered a situation where there was action without mechanism.

Now - if I demanded an explanation of the mechanism before I admitted the existence of anything I'd never get to learn anything new for myself, never mind discover anything - so that's not the point I'm trying to make.

What I do wrestle with is crappy explanations. There are all kinds of ways of checking out explanations, and all kinds of explanations. And maybe an explanation isn't necessary to the purpose (I find myself in technical meetings where all the participants are nodding sagely as TLA's (three letter acronyms) are bandied around. However it has happened too often that when I sheepishly interject that I don't know the meaning of a particular term, that no one else does either (not just the name of acronym, but more the surface working of the entity who's acronym is symbolized by the TLA). Who says ignorance is a barrier to reaching a conclusion?)

And I think that there are preliminary and provocative explanations that you use to move further in your understanding.

Crappy explanations make me obscurely angry inside -- I think it's too related to hypocrisy -- giving one rationale and really behaving according to another. Maybe it's too harsh to collapse the two, and renders me with an arrogant streak, but a bad explaining screw's up both our interactions with each other and with the world. 'Course this stance tends to limit who I can have penetrating dialogs with.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Tom: "I have not ever encountered a situation where there was action without mechanism. "

Tom, thank you. You've answered the question that's been hanging around me for a while now - what is Tom looking for?

Correct me if I'm in error, but I think you're looking for that mechanism which lies behind not only consciousness/awareness, but also all the paranormal/supernatural/suprahuman "powers"/abilities and events - ?no?

As for crappy explanations being too closely related to hypocrisy, sometimes it's a matter of articulation. Let me fall back to the "stuff" - I'd love to communicate the experience effectively, bu boss, I just don't have the words, in fact, I've never even heard of the right words. I'm sure this is not my only instance, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

.... and that's all I've got to say about that....

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Well Ken... Ill say something.

BTW... can see in some respects your pretty cognitively grounded David. Im not... in the classic sense. After being hugged by an Angel, its shifts ones world view a tad, and one becomes less grounded in the mental gyrations we so love to engage in.

Lets see. Back to the words of power concept...

During one of my metaphysical adventures in 1994 (when I was testing out how to live a Celestine lifestyle... i.e. following synchronicities and inner guidance... consciously), ended up in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, for a meeting of people interested in creating community. Afterwards, one of the participants asked several of us to join her the next morning, before dawn, to do a clearing ceremony on 75 acres of land with an Elder Ute Medicine Man, Richard Running Deer.

Nine of us gathered on a high knoll overlooking a preciously beautiful little de-energized valley filled with wild flowers, fragrant pine trees, rock people and a flowing stream. The Medicine Man laid out his sacred objects, beaded intricately, and used a fan of tropical bird feathers as part of the ceremony. Unusual, for a Native American.

Prior to commencing he even looked into the stunningly luminescent fan and told me I came from the land of palm trees (I had just moved away from Laguna Beach in Southern California), and reached into his medicine kit to hand me a shell... to remind me where I came from. (Its now one of my sacred ceremony objects). At any rate, the group went thorough an hour-long sunrise ceremony, lead by Richard Running Dear, often chanting in his native tongue.

At the close of the ceremony, he pulled away downhill from the group, ambling and chanting the closing words. Blessing the land and I surmise, based on what happened next, and calling forth the spirit of the woods... with words of power.

I watched, in concert with two of the other group participants who were more sensitive to seeing energies, a large green shimmering energy blob about 7 to 8 feet high form directly in front of him. Its as though he was interacting with it... and I know he knew it was there! It shifted energy patterns in reactions to what he was saying. My jaw sure dropped, and Im quite sure he had called forth the energy guardian of the land... with his words of power. Could also feel a decided release of the energy lock that had been hold ing the land down. The frequency of the land felt 100 times lighter when Richard had finished, and as the undulating green energy faded into the ethers.

Later I quizzed him on it, and just got a *Mona Lisa Smile* and a twinkling light from his crinkled eyes, in return.

So... I know by personal experience (and other adventures) there are words that have POWER to invoke the unseen energies.

;-D

Diane

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

"Correct me if I'm in error, but I think you're looking for that mechanism which lies behind not only consciousness/awareness, but also all the paranormal/supernatural/suprahuman "powers"/abilities and events - ?no?" Yes -- though I wouldn't want to limit it :-). I do have a strong sense that I need to clarify somewhat the workings of normal consciousness before I need to posit paranormal mechanisms. Just watching a stage magician, never mind invoking trance effects can lead the unwary to accept all sorts of "magical" explanations when such aren't required. My sense is that a better grasp of what's going an will make it possible to explicate those uncommon capabilities that are only "supra" compared to "normal" but are actually part of all of our heritage. That was one of the attractions of NLP - to be able to model "masters" so that their capable practices could be engendered more widely. "

As for crappy explanations being too closely related to hypocrisy, sometimes it's a matter of articulation. Let me fall back to the "stuff" - I'd love to communicate the experience effectively, bu boss, I just don't have the words, in fact, I've never even heard of the right words. I'm sure this is not my only instance, and I'm sure I'm not the only one."

The hypocrisy referent was to explain >my< emotional reaction which is sometimes strikingly disproportionate to where the other person is coming from, and so something I've got to own, not project. I put these out there with people I'm building trust with so they can say - "Hey isn't this the sort of over-reaction you warned us about to call you on?"

I think words evolved out of social contexts of coordinating behavior among people - not as a set of tools to explain the environment or inner experiences.

So when you are pushing the envelope and going some place new - there are not going to be the words - so it will be an articulation and seeking the right metaphor issue. And even when you do have a set of words that someone who has shared the experience will concur with -- they still might not be of any use to someone that doesn't have the experiential reference... Nonetheless we carry on, and compare notes as we go.

Gary Snyder the poet talks of learning the normal use of grammar and words so that when he is trying to convey something that words don't do that well, he can craft the construction of the poem to carry the something anyway.

I don't know how to resolve the tension between having to use existing words to create new understandings and explain new experiences, and the hijacking of concepts to provide an aura of credible explanation that doesn't really exist (the credible explanation). Regarding the metaphorical snake oil salesmen - they don't believe their own explanations, yet "once you've learned to fake sincerity you've got it made". I'm not good at ascertaining peoples motivations, so I get to work with the explanations.

.... and that's all I've got to say about that....

Sure hope not.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

...and so we must continue to adjust our descriptions of our perceptions at the alter of Effective Communication.....

Kinda reminds me of a DSP test system I had once... required a tune up every 6 - 8 hours to run effectively.....

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Hmmm... the altar of "effective communication"? Everytime you get brief I suspect you of having been annoyed. Am I misreading this comment when I take it as having connotations of political correctness?

Now the DSP analogy I don't feel uncomfortable about. Whenever I'm pushing into something new, I find I have to stop and reset every few hours just so I can remember what I was looking for...

Cheers

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Diane -- I checked out those sites. Whew. Way beyond me being able to make sense of them -- though I thought the resonance ideas of the DNA were provocative.

As regards using quantum effects to explain consciousness I have to confess I'm more sympathetic to the idea conveyed by the name "The Janitor's Dream" as described by the following author. Why invoke subteranean forces when more surface effects will suffice? link: http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998JConscStudies.htm -------(snip begins) While I hope that quantum field effects on consciousness exist (as you will presently see, when I get to technological possibilities), there are a number of problems with such proposals, not the least of which is the scanty evidence relating quantum fields to cortical synchrony, or relating synchrony to perceptual binding, or relating binding to attention, or relating attention to the much broader range of phenomena associated with consciousness (the word has many connotations, and they surely don't all share the same mechanism). To limit myself to the initial leap from QM (my abbreviation for all the quantums reviewed by Jibu and Yasue 1995) to synchrony, one should always be suspicious of any mechanism that claims to tunnel through a dozen levels of organization to produce a striking effect. As I explained in How Brains Think:

[A] more appropriate level of inquiry into consciousness is probably at a level of organization immediately subjacent to that of perception and planning: likely (in my view) cerebral-cortex circuitry and dynamic self-organization involving firing patterns within a constantly shifting quiltwork of postage-stamp-sized cortical regions. Consciousness, in any of its varied connotations, certainly isn't located down in the basement of chemistry or the subbasement of physics. This attempt to leap, in a single bound, from the subbasement of quantum mechanics to the penthouse of consciousness is what I call the Janitor's Dream.

Quantum mechanics is probably essential to consciousness in about the same way as crystals were once essential to radios, or spark plugs are still essential to traffic jams. Necessary, but not sufficient. Interesting in its own right, but a subject related only distantly to our mental lives -- and not to be confused with the temporary levels of organization associated with higher intellectual function.

-------(end snip) The writer bases this sentiment on the idea of stratified stability, a building up of stable "levels". Of course all of this analysis is predicated upon the process having worked itself out "on its own" and if we can predicate guidance by angels or other powers then it all goes out the window. (Other than asking whence the angels originated.)

------further snip In our search for a level corresponding to consciousness, it is well to recall that levels arise from what Jacob Bronowski (1973) called stratified stability:

Nature works by steps. The atoms form molecules, the molecules form bases, the bases direct the formation of amino acids, the amino acids form proteins, and proteins work in cells. The cells make up first of all the simple animals, and then the sophisticated ones, climbing step by step. The stable units that compose one level or stratum are the raw material for random encounters which produce higher configurations, some of which will chance to be stable.... Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which is stable in itself. --------(end snip)

Mmrphh... its like trying to work out the implications of a mathematical system when you can't decide on the axioms.

Maybe I should stick to problem solving as opposed to metaphysics.

Peace

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000