Hyponoetics - Guestbook

Due to misuse of the guestbook for advertising, adding new entries is currently disabled. Please feel free to contact the author directly (see email link at the bottom of the page).

Dear Sir
I am from Ethiopia. Regularly I surf your website. Then I always wonder and eager to cultivate the most use full knowledge of Hyponoesis. Please keep it up.
Bereket Alemayehu
alberek@freemail.et

Bereket Alemayehu
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - 10/18/2004 1:13:57 AM

Greetings from the beautiful isle of Éire!

I would like to compliment you on your wonderfully helpful website.

Thank you for your dedicated effort.

Keep up this invaluable contribution to the understanding of life for it is greatly appreciated by many around the world.

Blessings of continuous growth!

Cordially,

Richard
[A Story for the Generations]
Chapter 11 'A grace by the waters'

Richard Mc Sweeney
http://www.rivers2c.com/ave85.htm
Isle of Éire - 6/6/2004 1:12:24 PM

I was quite amazed to come across this brilliant site by chance. I have so far just browsed around the essays and the astonishing excerpt from Paul Brunton's book. I am looking forward to sitting down and reading through it all. By the way, the design and organisation of the web site are excellent.

Anne
http://www.fast-alles.com
Barnwell, mi, USA - 1/27/2004 10:42:32 PM

I have been exploring the immense world of the mind and I found your site to be very interesting! I am delving into what the mind can accomplish in relation to the medical field. I am not a doctor, but I believe that the mind has great capabilities in learning wellness for the physical body. Do you know of any studies that have been done or are being done in regard to comparisions of "brain-washing"and what I call "brain-enhancing"? Using the brain to learn wellness of physical body? Using the same principles of brain-washing, but not for control rather more for healing and wellness? I would appreciate any information you can give me on this topic.Thank-you.

Karen Weidmann
USA - 11/24/2003 1:59:24 AM

I’d like to say I’m not as well versed as allot of you but I have often tried to say that there is a base mechanical system of how we as humans think. This is important to me because I base my life on being able to tell weather something is real or not. It also is the reason I am in school to develop a way to translate how humans think to an Artificial Intelligence for computers.

Tom says allot of what I’ve been trying to say and didn’t know how exactly. I believe in all things, forms of reality, and theorems. It serves me well as I for one strive for personal betterment. It might be assumed that taking on all realities that are presented out there may make one insane. When I think, it is as if all theories and all realities are put on to shelves in my mind and I collect them all as you would pieces of a puzzle. Then when I actively think I collect all those pieces together and try to make sense of it all. The pieces that fit together make the truth I know. The ones that don’t fit I put back on the shelves to later decide if they are real or not.

The mechanics of human thought as far as my point of view goes has yet to be put to paper. I just want to say thank you Tom and all others out there for the hope that mankind will someday find a way to relate to one another and their environment so effectively that it will be almost impossible to misunderstand each other.

Ben Burton
Orem, UT, USA - 11/8/2003 10:58:45 AM

this is a great site. We have many thoughts in common, many of which are developed further on my site.

My only criticism is that, unfortunately, the jargon that you use is superfluous and serves as a hindrance to effectively communicating to others what you're trying to say.

Shawn Mikula
http://mind-brain.com
USA - 10/2/2003 9:01:05 PM

If perception is a creative, constructive process, to what extent do people perceive the world in the same way? Does red appear to one person as it does to another? If one person loves garlic and another hates it, are the two loving and hating the same taste, or does garlic have a different taste to each? The constructive nature of perception raises the equally intriguing question of whether, or to what extent, people see the world as it really is. Plato argued that what we perceive is little more than shadows on the wall of a cave, cast by the movement of an unseen reality in the dim light. What does it mean to say that a cup of coffee is hot? And is grass really green? A person who is color-blind for green, whose visual system lacks the capacity to discriminate certain wavelengths of light, will not see the grass as green. Is greenness, then, an attribute of the object (grass), the perceiver, or some interaction between the observer and the observed? These are philosophical questions at the heart of sensation and perception.Philosophers have composed many different variations on this theme, but the classic version is the interpersonal version: How do I know that you and I see the same subjective color when we look at something? Since we both learned our color words by being shown public colored objects, our verbal behavior will match even if we experience entirely different subjective colors - even if the way red things look to me is the way green things look to you, for instance.

Amida Sulaal
Tunisia - 8/5/2003 1:45:46 PM

I find the study of thought process fasinating. There are at present, nexuses being made between thought process, and quantum physics. Interesting stuff, look at the comparisons in the linguistics of the sciences. Many references are noted to the fact that linguistics are rooted in verb form (to be verbal) and nouns became more prevailant with physical science Verbs are quantum or spiritual in nature while nouns are materialistic. Native americans still speak in verb form, in order to remain in the spiritual realm

John Miller
Bowling Green , oh, USA - 10/12/2002 8:45:04 AM

I'm very happy to have found someone else who believes that there is a universal mind. Your site is well-done, very interesting!

moi
Canada - 10/1/2002 9:01:13 AM

Hey…. I was searching on “Intuitive thinking” and found your website.
You site is fantastic… i think you should compile a book or at least put it in PDF for people who want to read all your website ay one go.

I believe there are many who will dismiss your website as rubbish because there is a lot of subjectivity in thinking and consciousness.

I hope the paragraphs works out fine..

I would like to share my thoughts on “Intuitive Thinking”. In school, we have been often been tested for our ability to think and how well we think. However, thinking in school seem so compartmentalized and structured when people have to learn chapter sequentially from 1 to 14 without regard to experiences in daily lives and interest.

I took a break from school and spent some time alone reading. That was the time I begin to experience intuitive thinking. I think “Intuitive thinking” only occurs in subjects I am immensely interested.

In my experiences of “Intuitive Thinking”, I am driven by a rush of energy, that controls my perception. Instead of reading from Chapter 1-14 sequentially, I took about 10-20 books out and I was frantically searching for something. My reading perception is strongly guided by Intuition. If I hit the right stuff that can answer my question, I would experience heightened awareness. Intuition helps me find part of a puzzle I was looking for! Thus Intuition is a guiding force for me to understand the world rather than learning sequentially from Chap 1-14 in school.

My last point I would to add is thought merely verbalizes experiences. Thought is just a SYMBOL to represent something. I think experiencing things relating to our lives and goals more important than thinking about things that have no possiblity of reconciling to our daily experience.

Subjects like Math physics chemistry are mostly taught with little connection to the real world. They are mostly aimed at producing a workforce for the economy

Intuition is important because it guides thinking by reconciling with experience. Thought merely utters what we have experienced.

GUANG RONG
singapore - 9/28/2002 10:31:22 AM

Dianoetically: The proof of the unified field can only be established by crucial reference to the unity of identity in form of the noetic action in man to the lawfull ordering of the self articulation (Becoming) of universal nature. This proof is the center of the ancient though largely misunderstood science of philosophical geometry. The system of hyponoetics can therefore be given intelligible representation in the symbolic characteristics of philosophical geometry. This is the next stage, preceding that of the reintegration of the manifold into the one field of mind/matter (Physica et alchemyia transmutatio). I am truly encouraged by the work you have done. It does not have to be logical for logic is not internally consistent! Yet in this regard it is supremely rational. Let us collaborate in the gradual extension of the intellectual enlightenment.

Sabut Maat.

Sabut
Bloomfield , CT, USA - 7/18/2002 7:05:07 AM

I have to be straight with you..Although I respect you rights and would like to think that I have a very open mind not to mention a sane one...I think you are making more out of absolutely nothing. You see life is very simple in its function and our minds are just as equally simple unless we chose to complicate them with this kind of intensity.
Who knows you may have something..
Good luck and Peace In spirit and mind!

Eva Christofano
http://Primodiet.com
Wilmington, DE, USA - 3/15/2002 6:17:32 PM

I am, presumably, not as well read as you are in general, though I have a good understanding of philosophy and science overall, I am a highschool student also interested in whatever theory might help us understand the world by showing us a certain truth or truthful attribute of the external world and our mental comprehension of it; taking " truth " as the relation between a mental state which I shall refer to as " belief " and the events of fact occuring in a world that most probably exists outside our minds but that we can only experience through our thoughts.

Though you seem to be a well read and intelligent philosopher, there are parts in your theoretical discourses were you are led astray by slipshod reasoning, non factual evidence and special pleading, as well as your belief in some sort of pantheistic God. Therefore I have some critical comments regarding your philosophy of mind. First of all, you depend largely on the ontological argument as a proof of the existence of " God ", this argument is quite weak, since no philosopher defending it has been able to provide any valid reason for why existence is part of the perfect attributes of a perfect being, not taking into account that " existence " is not a predicate, thus non appliable to a " substance " like " God.

The though of God, or the thinking of a Soul, does not necessarily mean these concepts are a priori apprehensions of the mind, nor that they are real things, knowable ( in your philosophy ) through some sort of mystic connection between what you call " the Individual mind " and the " Universal mind ". To me, these concepts, though used creatively are nothing but old concepts re stated, much like James Pragmatism " A new name for an old way of thinking "; there are such words as " omniscient ", " immortal " etc, that people suppose have an actual reality, and when they cannot place this reality, they escape the issue, like you do, by arguing that they must have been apprehended from an external source or through God himself, in this particular case, through the connection between the " universal mind " and the " individual mind ".

There are more logical solutions which can perfectly be explained by modern empiricism, whenever your mind goes through experiences, if you know a certain language, it will relate the events with known words, in the case of dreams it may even create new fantastic beings such as dragons, these beings, being nothing more than the product of imagination and experience. So it happens with words like
" God " or " Soul ", even " omniscient " and " immortal "; It escapes my understanding how some people assign strange attributes to these words as if waving a magic wand of linguistic falsification and making the word valid and real, like they could somehow envision what such things, if real, would be like.

You offer no real evidence there, also to point out that IT IS A KNOWN FACT that the mind of a normal person is unable to work at its fullest is a fairy tale invented by some psychologist ( by the way psychology is not a science ). I've never read anything of the sort in any scientific source but I do recall reading that such a claim is fallacious, for, how is it that you can know what percentage of your mind you're using ? It seems quite childish. Now, if you are talking about infrared detection of brain activity as a source for your claim, then you would also be mistaken, for whatever infrared activity occurs in the brain, occurs in the cerebral cortex in whatever part is being used at that time, a different area for, linguistics, math, music, etc. That the whole brain is not used in this operation is due to the fact that the cortex assigns activities to regions, as it is certainly logical if you understand the the cortex is quite a new implement in the evolutionary development of mammals.

I cannot for the life of me, find any strenght in your arguments against the mind as a " pure relation of thoughts ", you depend largely on the assumption that there must be ( as Kant thought ) some arrangement which makes the mind a cohesive whole and also relates it to an individual body, I don't see how this is defensible; that mind is a collection of thoughts could possibly be true, “ how do you explain will then ? “ You ask. Here is my take on it: There are emotions, thoughts react to emotions, there are also memories, thoughts react to them, there are mirrors, thoughts relate the image on the mirror when you stand in front of it with that particular body, creating the delusion of the self, delusive is also that you can command the body to move. Bear in mind that whenever you are trying to identify the self, you end up relating your thoughts to some experience, feeling, memory, etc. Never finding such an essence. It is true that individual humans, have individual bodies and indivisual brains, but mind, as you point out, is something different, the thoughts constituting it not necessarily need the hypothesis of the “ self “. Again I suspect you may be relying on the existence of the soul to defend this hypothesis.

In your criticisms of Russell you point out certain syntactical inadequacies in Russell's discourse, I don't really see how these " mistakes " are anything else than a linguistic problem common to ordinary non - mathematical language. Russell's opinion is understandable and the only criticism you can find is regarding the way he wrote his description.

The concept that a mind is like some computer which can access the super highway of information ( the universal mind ) as if the universe was some kind of internet, is beyond my intellectual grasp, perhaps on a reasoning mistake on my part, perhaps you need to offer more evidence and a better exposition of your theories. They don't cease to be interesting, but they are older than you think. I'd like to see how you relate this universal mind, and individual minds with free will.

Perhaps my criticisms are invalid, though I cannot see why, I shall hope then to be blessed by a better understanding, perhaps an intuitive epitaph from the universal mind, if you are in the right, of course. Anyway, it is good to see that someone out there is doing some thinking, and for that and your well diplayed site, congratulations.

No, really, I believe your philosophy is interesting but I just can't help but disagreeing with you. You discard modern empiricism quite rapidly, and offer no explanation of why its methods are erroneous. The same goes for your criticism toward science. You rely too much on Eastern philosophy for my taste. But we agree in that we need to think more about thinking.

Moises
Mexico - 1/30/2002 10:56:44 PM

"Hyponoetics is a new philosophy of mind postulating a fundamental unitary reality that manifests itself in a multitude of various aspects and degrees of mind and matter." THIS IS BRILLIANT STUF! MUST READ.RE: "...the collective, universal or cosmic Mind, the One Mind, the World-Mind." ... and that "Paranoesis reunites the Individual Mind with the Universal Mind."One can now see how the individual mind and universal Mind can interact, through a process called 'interrelationship' as described in Habeas Mentem, whereby the human mind interacts with its greater universal 'identity' through a process of awareness and agreement.Habeas Mentem can be viewed at: http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm

Ivan D. Alexander
http://www.humancafe.com
Costa Mesa, CA, USA - 5/30/2001 5:51:11 PM

Having had a traditional business focused education, I am generally very ignorant of the approach and view of philosophy in helping to understand thinking. As a management consultant involved in helping large organizations -- mostly multinational corporations -- think about thinking and then set about to improve thinking skills, I found your site very informative and helpful. I am interested in communicating with others who are dedicated to getting beyond fads, buzz words, "management flavors of the month", etc. in thinking about thinking -- particularly in the world of business.

William K. Foster
Santa Barbara, CA, USA - 11/4/2000 1:55:28 PM

Universally speaking; universalize thought,utilize intuition. As neutral as I have been, I think without thinking. Act without acting. Universalize without universalization. I am merely A creator, synonymous with THE creator. I have been given the greatest gift ever known to man: intuitive thought creativity. Much like the love of God for his chosen, undying and indisputable, my thinking is my GOD given gift.

Ryan
USA - 7/25/2000 4:23:11 AM

I think that this is a very good webpage. I also agree with the creater of this ideology that more people need to start thinking about thinking. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of this very important ability, and we need to understand it much better.

Justin Blahnik
USA - 5/13/2000 12:17:30 PM

I think the site was very insightfull and do believe I share some of your views. I find Thoreau to be a great inspiration to me.

Josh Crossland
La Mirada, CA, USA - 10/10/1999 4:55:44 PM

i was very interested in your theory...i could only read a few pages right now..it was intreging. i look forward to coming back and viewing it all. very well done.

nate
VA, USA - 7/2/1999 12:57:42 AM

I was very pleased to find your site,love the essays. I have had many Mystical experiences,which have been 'Mind changing'and therefore life changing.I use the book 'A Course in Miracles' on a daily basis, to change my perception. Thank you, Moira.

Moira Paterson
Weymouth, UK - 6/27/1999 7:42:28 AM

I was quite amazed to come across this brilliant site by chance. I have so far just browsed around the essays and the astonishing excerpt from Paul Brunton's book. I am looking forward to sitting down and reading through it all. By the way, the design and organisation of the web site are excellent.

Peter B. Lloyd
www.ursasoft.com/publish
London, UK - 6/24/1999 12:29:47 PM

Your thinking is great thinking! But it is only a hypothesis. How can you approve it and develope it in our daily life. That may need another profound thinking. Anyway, I like your Universal Mind Thinking.

William Shen
Sydney, NSW Australia - 5/25/1999 10:50:43 PM

Great to have found you on the web! We will link to you. Sincerely,

Pascalle Sweerts
www.xs4all.nl/~kosmoss
Amsterdam, NH The Netherlands - 4/28/1999 10:14:35 AM

I do not know what to think about this site, yet. I found it to be an interesting place to explore for the moment. When I thoroughly read the material here then I can decide what my full feelings are towards it. gs

Ginni D Snodgrass
www.ginni.com
Tualatin, OR, USA - 4/26/1999 4:36:35 PM

A remarkably interesting attitude, so different and philosophically tuned. - Gives a rich source for disagreement and argument.

Giorgi Margvelashvili
Tbilisi, Georgia - 3/29/1999 3:04:32 AM

Nice site! Thought-provoking.

Kristin Leeson
Seattle, WA, USA - 2/5/1999 5:58:31 AM