Talk:Astral projection/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] More Content on Known Consensus of Astral Projection

Rather than have this article be a mockery of the idea that there are ways to interpret lucid dreaming besides just "disconnected brain receiving random static", it would be great if a balanced presentation of the meaningful concepts and abstractions were given. It's clear that this article is going to have "adherents believe..." and "some who claim to be able to astral project say..." disclaimers, but even still Astral Projection should be honed down to something better than a catchphrase for "mind over matter". Is Astral Projection completely distinct from Remote Viewing, or does it include Remote Viewing as a subfield? I know the silver cord is fairly definitive (though I lucid dream quite frequently and have never seen such a thing), is there anything else? Metaeducation 29 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

I am sorry for editing yours to poke this in, but as I don't know how to create my own post I have little choice. Having researched projection for some time now, I must inform and clear away some things. Astral Projection is NOT a form of lucid dreaming. It is more easily attained through this but it is possible and commonplace to project consciously. In short the body falls asleep (much as a foot or leg would) whilst the mind does not. The reason that it may be believed to only be attained in sleep and thus lucid dreaming is probably that at the second conscious projection is acheived, the body does indeed enter sleep mode and the brain likewise becomes just as inactive as an average sleeper would. It is the mind that is active, not the consciousness, transfered into one of the seven subtle bodies or layers of Aura, the astral body, which can walk around in the physical plane or jump to the astral. Astral projection really does not have much of anything to do with "mind over matter..." it is more accurately described as the mind going out for a walk. And since the mind is unlimited, so is it's neihborhood. Remote viewing IS completely distinct from astral projection in that you walk around outside of your body, whereas remote viewing is just seeing something that will happen, only lightly dipping the astral plane. It's the difference between seeing through a webcam with a blurring screen over the lens and actually being in the room and walking around unhindered. I hope this helped. And to your last question about the silver cord, since astral projection is completely separate from lucid dreaming, you will never see a silver cord as it is linked to your body, and thus only visible when your astral shell is outside of it. See my addition to :Astral Projection and the Bible: now :Astral Projection, the Bible, and the Silver Cord:. Sachiel 18 July 2005 9:37 GMT

actually there is no such thing as 7 auric layers and you do not actually leave the body. You actually do what is called "phasing". You change your focus of counciousness to a higher level of reality, The auric layers are from the traditional, mystic ways of astral projection and are all just assumptions. If you believe there are only 7 astral planes than that is all you will get!

[edit] Argue the Adverse

What this article really needs is an opposing view, such as can be found in the Neon Genesis: Evangelion article, where multiple views as to the symbolism of the topic are mentioned, though not necessarily cited. All opinions are not verifiable, yet are agreeable. The topic of this article is both proven/disproven by opinion alone, as psychology was so many centuries ago.

Would it be appropriate to have a speculation section? I'm interested in the similarities between the OBE state and a psychedelic dose Dimethyltryptamine experience. I would be willing to write a section with references regarding this. Looking at the article on Dimethyltryptamine they have a similar section speculating DMT production by the pineal gland. This might offer an alternative viewpoint on the origin of these experiences. Misterjingo 02 Feb 2006 02:43 (GMT)
Wikipedia does not allow original work. So no, you cannot make a speculation section. If you find papers backing yor claims you could add the info in the critics section. Bragador 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Although there are papers and books on Dimethyltryptamine being the possible cause of mystical experiences, and there are many reports from users of Dimethyltryptamine which match near exactly OBE experiences, I don't think anyone has made the link. Dr Rick Strassman made a link between Dimethyltryptamine and nead death experiences in his research though. misterjingo 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the following with some cited text:

Proponents of the writings of Robert Bruce sometimes refer to this practice as "Real Time Projection" (RTP) and the mundane world as the "Real Time Zone" (RTZ). From the Real Time Zone, travelers can access "the astral" or remain in the RTZ and witness real time happenings.
Godshatter 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culling The Truth

Talking about astral projection is like talking about ghosts. No one can prove the existence of either, and they may be more artifacts of pop culture, based on ancient myths, and then they exist, nontheless. The Norse Thunder god, Thor doesn't really exist, and neither do Vampires, yet there is some agreement to facts surrounding these mythical, or literary characters. No one will ever prove astral projection because it is experiential, but it's still worth gathering what information we can. June 5, 2007

I am sure there are people who believe that Thor exists, as well as vampires, as do people believe in God. Thor is no more or less provable than God. Discounting them is no way to make a statement. 64.136.201.198 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church Part

I don't know how the third heaven is seen as populated by evil beings, see the wiki entry for third heaven here. It is described as the place where God and Eden reside. I believe that it is true that the Catholic Church does not agree with people using astral projection and other things like this, quite possibly for similar reasonings of a lack of protection against evil beings... However the whole thing about the third heaven struck me as odd. So I researched it and didn't really come upon anything that would show this part to be true. Nor was it cited.

Well, at the beginning i was surprised with "the whole thing about the third heaven" in the mentioned section of the article. On one hand, because it is mentioned elsewhere that the Third Heaven "is the highest point attainable by man at his present stage of development." (RCL, 1908); beyond that point only higher Spiritual beings can access, which is the world where the unifying Spirit Christ lives, from the perspective of Christian esoteric teachings. On the other hand, because Paul of Tarsus states: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. / And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)" (2Cor 12:2-3, KJV).
However, once we get acquainted with the description of the nature of the Hierarchy of high Spiritual beings that inhabits that same plane it is not odd at all that theologians within the Catholic Church would have the view of the Third Heaven [1] as inhabited by evil beings ("is ruled by spiritual hosts of wickedness in the high places, which will send demons to deceive those who will not keep to the domain of the world.", as stated in that section of the article): they were called "Powers of Darkness" by Paul. Although they work with humanity, toward our evolution, in the World of Thought only (the world beyond the Astral-Desire-Emotional one [home of the Archangels], but before the World which is home of the Christ, The Son, pls. see also this brief description), they "are considered evil on account of the separative tendency appertaining to the plane of Reason as contrasted with the unifying forces of the World of Life Spirit; the realm of Love." (RCC, 1909). Yet, to the editor expressing that view in the mentioned section of the article (and to all those akin to it), please allow one final note: in these highly advanced Spiritual Beings inhabiting the Third Heaven that you, in your blind judgment, may see "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the high places", we are taught about The Father (pls. see John 14:2).

[edit] Preparing to add additional data

I've been trying to make some organizational changes in an attempt to get setup for adding some additional data. Please let me know if I'm headed in the wrong direction. What I would like to see is some additional information on the different astral planes, as well as the different spirit world beyond those, such as data on astral beings encountered, astral wildlife, astral entry structures, etc. I'd also like to add a section that discusses the fact that there are many different preparations exercises and separation techniques without actually describing them in a cookbook fashion. I think it's important for someone perusing this subject to know that they exist as an overview of the information. I'd also like to expand upon the connections this topic has with different religions and esoteric groups, such as Indian yogis, theosophy, occultists, ritual magic groups, etc. A comprehensive summary would give the interested reader many different "jumping-off points" into related topics. These tie-ins are reflected in the literature, which ranges from subjects such as astral projection to chakras, auras, meridians, psychic abilities, mediumship, the spirit world, UFOS, and many other topics quite freely. Those topics shouldn't be discussed here, just mentioned where they relate to this topic. I would also like to see the scientific or skeptical side enhanced as well, for balance, although it may be better placed in the main out of body experiences page. Godshatter 05:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible to get stuck on the astral?

I don't see this in the article, but I've heard many times that while you're in this state, "you" are connected to your body with some kind of silver elastic-like substance. If someone moves your body or somehow you fall out of bed or whatever, this elastic-connection is broken, and your subconscious won't be able to find your body, thus you'll be stuck in the astral forever, while your body is in a coma. This is what I've heard...if someone can confirm this, maybe it could be put into the article? Draconiator 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The criticism section of this page is a little lacking…

“Although the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element…”

That statement is a little too bias to be in the criticism section. The scientific community’s default position is usually a form of naturalism. It is highly unlikely that institutions such as The National Academy of Science are of the opinion that Astral Projection is anything more than pseudoscience.

For the sake of balance, the criticism area should be expanded to include the views of naturalists and skeptics. I imagine that The Skeptic Society would be a good place to begin research into that area…

If anything, someone should take the “Although the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element…” and plug that into an “evidence” section, and then proceed to describe why New-Age “scientists” believe that “the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element.”—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iglessner (talk • contribs).

[edit] Intentional Projection

article says: "Those who are regarded as psychics often say the subconscious (dreaming) mind controls the spirit or astral body, resulting in falling dreams or waking up with a falling sensation and sudden jerk. Many end with the feeling of suddenly "falling" or "snapping" and sometimes "pulling" back into their physical bodies. Most non-lucid dreams are not remembered by the conscious mind, making the experience of astral projection subjective. Believers in astral projection point out, though, that most ghost sightings often define the ghost as a lucid or transparent apparition walking the earth."

But from what I've heard the state of astral projection is induced by falling or snapping out of the body while in a dream/altered state.

[edit] Wow, good job!

I initially came to this article with the purpose of looking it over and revising it -- then I realized that the sources I was going to add are already there, and it's a pretty well-written article already. Kudos to everybody who's worked on it thus far! --Spazure 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs some improvement

This article is good in some ways, but contains a lot of unsourced material and what seems to be a lot of WP:OR. A good example:

"The phasing model, which was defined by Robert Monroe, holds the belief that it is impossible to actually leave your body in the truest sense of the word, and that the astral planes and the physical world are merely points on the long spectrum of consciousness."

This is unsourced, and doesn't really represent what Monroe said.

Another good example: "Astral projection is controversial. It is not observable or testable by scientific method." This is totally unsourced, and could not be sourced anyway, as it is a statement requiring negative proof. It also ignores experiments like those done by Tart and those done on Monroe- to give a very small sample.

I'm going to go over the article pretty soon, so this is a heads-up to try and source this stuff. That's not to denigrate any of the obvious hard work and care people have taken with this article, however (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I admire most of your recent copyediting and rewording efforts, thanks for taking the time to work on this article! In the future though, please discuss before deleting entire sections.spazure (contribs) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Could, but the section didn't have any sources. I often delete sections, and usually no one minds. I just figured that it could be re-inserted with a source if anyone cared. In other words, Wikipedia never truly deletes anything (: Will discuss here in future... though I don't want to delete more sections. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Method

I believe that Carl Sagan in his book 'Broca's Brain' (I think it was that one) suggested an experiment to test the reported claims of Astral Projection. He proposed that the phenomena could be tested scientifically if the subject could describe the details of a drawing on a piece of paper that the experimenter had produced-the subject of course having no previous knowledge of the drawing. This experiment could be done several times and so test the phenomenon scientifically. Hence I have altered the intial statement that 'It is not observable...by scientific method' to 'To Date it has not been observed by scientific method' --Godfinger 15:28

Great, I just made the same change. Seems we have to keep an eye on it (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Cultic Studies

The last sentence of the first part states:

The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".[1]

Although this is a referenced quote I think that this is a very loaded statement that only reflects personal opinion and bias.A more neutral quote would be more appropriate. The International Cultic Studies Association no doubt has it's own agenda and it may be more appropriate to include some other statement which reflects the view that Astral Projection is unsupported by scientific evidence. The current quote and the previous entry stating that Astral Projection is not possible to test by scientific method reveals more of a bias towards the belief ( similar to personal faith ) that supernatural events are impossible rather than the more neutral scientific attitude that holds that empirical evidence for such things is lacking. --Godfinger 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the only bias is that this article is hijacked by believers in unreasonable and often outright stupid claims and phenomenons. The International Cultic Studies Association is a reliable association with its own agenda: science and reason. If empirical evidence is lacking and cannot be presented, it cannot be tested and verified and as such fails in the eyes of science. Please learn what a scientific method is before you insert your uneducated POV into Wikipedia articles.--Svetovid 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not an uneducated POV you are just displaying your own chauvanistic POV here and intolerance of those who disagree with you. I have no problem with disputing the claims of those who maintain the existence of the supernatural or who have a different interpretation to Astral Projection to your own POV but the choice of quote is inherently judgemental and loaded that uses words designed to judge and condemn rather than to assess objectively and it simply comes across as chauvanistic. If it is to be disputed then I think there are better , more neutral quotes you could find. It is not true that Astral Projection has been disproved, and it would only need one scientifically verifiable case to provide evidence of it which as yet, you cannot justifiably say will never happen unless you claim to be psychic or something. All one could say is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the phenomenon and maybe elaborate on the statement with scientific theories that would provide a credible alternative explanation.--Godfinger 18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say, let that stand- but of course we have to take out the absolutist negative claims which cannot be supported by evidence, and attribute to skeptics. That is just the way skeptics sound, and there is no reason the article shouldn't present their stance in their words. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe reality and science offend your feelings and especially wishes but there is no reason why you should state your personal wishes as a fact. For the last time, learn what scientific method is and what it requires.
Scientific theories do not exist without observable and testable proofs.
Also see Russell's teapot to understand the difference between personal experience/wish/thought and observable reality (that analogy is specifically about religion, but the same logic applies here).--Svetovid 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Unacceptable. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Svetoid: Despite your comments I am fully aware of what scientific method is about. Don't make unfounded assumptions on my education. You have no knowledge of my background. Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts. Theories about the origin of the universe for example. The theories may be scientific in nature because they rely on other scientific facts and and theories which work within general scientific paradigms. Please familiarise yourself with the differences between theories and facts. In this case it may be true that there may be a lack of empirical evidence but you cannot state with any certainty that it will always be the case and so the correct scientific stance would be to say that there is a lack of empirical evidence. Your attitude resembles a faith in scientism rather than science. I don't disagree that the article could be better if it was balanced with scientific arguments but in the interests of producing a neutral and unbiased take on the issue of Astral Projection I feel that your 'scientific' stance reveals more of your prejudice and desire to imply that people who believe this stuff are somehow stupid rather than any genuine desire to contribute to this article objectively. --Godfinger 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts."
This sentence is enough to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Read at least the linked wiki articles.
I don't think some people are necessarily stupid; they just don't like reality and substitute it with their wishes.
I don't even object to that as long as they don't try to impose their skewed view of reality on others when the others are either unaware what's going on or are against it, which is this case.
Astral travel and similar games/nonsense are based on personal experience/testimony and does not claim anything else. Again, read the linked Russell's teapot article with an open mind to understand the difference between reality and what you or anybody else proclaim is real.--Svetovid 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are making the fallacy of Russell's teapot in reverse. You are assuming that the lack of proof of a proposition is proof that the proposition is untrue. You could of course take the view that the proposition is unfalsifiable if you wish to subscribe to the Critical rationalism of Karl Popper -a view which undoubtedly has been very influential. However it has not been without it's critics as you will learn if you actually took the trouble to read the article on Scientific Method yourself. --Godfinger 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an invisible horse flying around you all the time, undetectable by any current devices. Prove me wrong.
The point is that it's up to you to prove a (ridiculous) claim (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
The text is accurate: "to date there is no empirical evidence for it, and thus it is not observable or testable by scientific method." What is not correct about it (logically and factually)?--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is a ridiculous claim. In fact a lot of the claims of quantum physics are also ridiculous but they can be upheld by scientific evidence. However, you cannot prove that it is not the case so you cannot make sweeping statements about it. To do so is beyond current scientific knowledge. You may have reasons to think it is unlikely but beyond that, you cannot say more-which is what I am trying to point out to you.Just because something seems silly to YOU does not constitute proof that it is untrue or will never be proven true or false by science. --Godfinger 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A gem of a quote from the argumentum ad ignorantiam article :

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true."

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make. You are making a logical fallacy that "a premise is false only because it has not been proved true". You really need to study your articles a bit more carefully before you start criticising other editors logical faults. Otherwise it just makes you look so uneducated. --Godfinger 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Here is a gem from Godfinger (talk · contribs): "Scientific method is not a recipe." No better proof that this editor has abandoned reason is needed and I rest my case.--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And here is a gem of a quote from the Scientific Method Article :

'The scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity[15]. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods' --Godfinger 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should modify the view expressed in the Scientific Method article that you exhort us to read since you claim to know so much more than the rest of us plebs --Godfinger 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You quoted that alone! You took it out of context.--Svetovid 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I am content to let the current revision rest and wont challenge the International Cultic Studies quote even though I am of the opinion that it is a slur and really has no place in this article. We could discuss the philosophy of science untill the end of time but really, this is not the place so I think it best to avoid 'scientific method' discussions in the article. I prefer to use the 'sceptical model' as I think that is inclusive enough. In fact the sceptical model section could probably be expanded in this article. However, I still think there are better quotes that could be used to lend dignity to the sceptical position. If I find one-I'll post it on this page to allow discussion rather than indulge in endless edit wars. --Godfinger 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Lend dignity? Is it a problem to say that emperor has no clothes; that new-age nonsense is irrational and mainly laughable?--Svetovid 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of subjects in the Wikipedia that you may consider to be nonsense.That is your opinion. Nonetheless there are many perspectives on these issues other than your own and it is legitimate to include them all.However it is not the place here to mock something just because you don't believe it or aren't able to tolerate it because of your own POV. The quote you put there is a slur. You want it there because you want to mock the subject.It comes across clear as daylight and makes your position appear to be a form of chauvanism rather than a legitimate stance. If you think that the sceptical position should be taken seriously then I believe there are better ways of going about it.--Godfinger 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be more appropriate if the quote went something like this: "International Cultic Studies Association claims that the idea of astral travel is simply self-deception". It would seem less like mocking and still be a correct quote. What do you think? Anton H 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: The word "childish" seems to me as completely unnecessary and offensive. It doesn't add anything other than the writer's personal opinions. The quote would only be better without it. Anton H 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes are generally to be avoided in summaries. There is no reason to single out one skeptical institution- indeed, we should not. There is no reason at all for this source. Also, since the article makes no claims to be anything but an interpretation, skepticism is barely notable at all. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed for consensus-building

I've removed the following paragraph so that we can build a consensus version here on the talk page. Here is the current verions:


Astral projection is controversial. To date there is no empirical evidence for it, and thus it is not observable or testable by scientific method. The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".[1]

Here is my suggested version:

Astral projection is controversial. Skeptics say that there is no empirical evidence for it. The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".[2]

Basic reason: 1) we don't know that there is no emperical evidence. 2) Even if we did, it doesn't follow that astral projection not observable or testable by scientific method.

–––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you have a strong bias towards defending this unreasonable belief so your opinions need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Second, you presented that you do not understand what science and scientific methods are ("Even if we did, it doesn't follow that astral projection [is] not observable or testable by scientific method.") Is there any empirical evidence then? No, and astral projection does not make the claim that it can produce some.
[2]
“ Beliefs in paranormal phenomena pose a problem for psychologists who want to understand how people create and maintain these beliefs when there is no credible evidence that they have any basis in fact. When psychologists probe for the origin of these beliefs, they find that believers in psychic phenomena often use scientific jargon and fundamental concepts of scientific understanding, but the words do not match their usual definitionsand the concepts are misunderstood. ”


--Svetovid 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Please stop the personal attacks, or I'll report you. Let's see what others have to say. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hah, I knew you'd use that as defence. There are no personal attacks. You demonstrated you have bias (your profile and edits show that) and that you don't understand what scientific method is.--Svetovid 09:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing to talk page pending citation

The following needs citation badly. I hope someone can source it, and then we can put it back in:

[edit] Mental projection

 This section does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Mental projection is projection of the astral body to the mental plane via utilisation of mental energy while within the astral or etheric to phase into the Mental, or a different process used to project directly into the Mental Plane. The active subtle body of the mental plane is the mental body, which constitutes the intellectual consciousness of the projector in general. The environment is generally highly colorful and kaleidoscopic in nature, like the astral, and shifting consciously. The difference is that even mathematical functions and thoughts will manifest seemingly physically. The buffer zone between the astral and mental planes is known as the Akashic Records, and appears as a library of knowledge of past, present, and future possibility. There are many theories as to why the perceptions of these records and the mental plane in general differ from projector to projector, but the general consensus is that the Akashic records will appear differently, like a computer or library to different people at different times, and that the future is always sketchy and can often change mid-viewing to the projector.

–––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on the sources

I haven't really cleaned up the sources in the sense of naming them so the appear nicely in the list- they are now repeated, except one. The reason for this is that the article will probably change a lot in the future, and named references are much easier to mess up, leaving future editors with no clue as to what the original source was. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using terms such as "model"

Since the only explanation for "astral projection" is the skeptical idea, giving equal footing to all three "models" (and even calling them "models") is unreasonable. ScienceApologist 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't focused on the consensus reality of scientists or any other group. It's focused only on proven facts that we can ALL agree on. For example, it's a proven fact there are different beliefs about astral projection.
"It's focused only on proven facts that we can ALL agree on." - That doesn't even make sense. Also, scientific facts are indeed facts.--Svetovid (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed

This article is extremely pro-astral projection and definitely violates WP:NPOV. What's more, a lot of the "facts" contained in the article are cited to less than reliable sources and so I think that a major overhaul is due. I tagged the article accordingly. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you probably noticed that the article was hijacked by a few astral projection fans, who do not allow any neutral edits (as evidenced by edit history and talk page).--Svetovid (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There are some skeptics who evidently would prefer that any article on AP be purely a neurophysiological interpretation or only contain statements that imply that AP experiences are merely dreams or hallucinations. That anyone who believes or thinks otherwise is an idiot. Such edits made to this effect can hardly be considered neutral. There are several statements in the article that refer to that skeptical interpretation, and the definition of AP itself has been described as paranormal. Given the phenomenological nature of the experience, the skeptical interpretation offers nothing more of value to the article. The sources too , are quite reliable in so far they include several standard works on the subject, that contain descriptions of techniques that can be practised even by the skeptical. No doubt, people who have these experiences may have different interpretations to the ones suggested by certain editors who probably have not studied the subject much. The FACTS are that people do have AP experiences, that there is a body of literature that reports about these experiences, that discusses the use of AP in several spiritual and occult disciplines, and may be of interest to anyone who is curious about the life of the mind or psyche or spirit or whatever you might be inclined to call it. All of this is relevant to an article on Astral Projection--Godfinger (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] overly cynical

I feel this article takes on an overly cynical tone. Science offers no reason to doubt the exitence of an astral plane. Science can in fact offer a potential explanation. Our universe as it is currently understood contains a balance between matter and energy. This balance allows for the enormous amount of activity that takes place. Now our universe is generally thought to have begun with the big bang. Some view this as a miraculous event while others see it as a natural process. Let us assume it is a natural process. If this is the case then there is nothing to stop this process happening many more times. There could therefore be a potentially infinite number of universes co-existing. This theory, known as the 'multiverse', proposes that there are many different kinds of universe in existence. These other universes need not neccesarily share the balance of matter and energy that is found in our own. They could be made of entirely matter, or entirely energy. A universe made entirely from energy could not occupy any space, since space is a concept defined by matter. Such a universe then would neither be near to us or far away from us. It would just be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.187.193 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astral Projection and Possession

I think that the following edit is not relevant to the 'separation model section. Many advanced "practitioners" claim that the biblical "Jezebel" refers directly to the craft, and that astral projection is an apparent necessity, mandatory (device, key) in all cases of "possession".[8] [9]

Also, I cannot find any references to the publication on the Internet. I doubt if this is an appropriate source. I have my reservations about the other source. It seems that this could be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that Astral Projection is associated with demonic possession and does not belong here so I have removed it. But of course, feel free to discuss.Godfinger (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You obviously did not follow the link. I can agree that it doesn't belong in the 3 models at all. Anyone here familiar with the book/movie "Invisible Man"? ell, that's the perfect model of astral projection: Peeping Tom, sadism, & a code of Silence. I rest my case. CalFellows (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Then the removal was justified, since the intention of your edit was to say that Astral Projection is somehow 'evil'-which is hardly a neutral POV on the subjectGodfinger (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My intent was not to say that it's evil, but merely show that it does tie in to witchcraft & possession (paganism). Crowley's work will certainly get you there, The Key of Solomon, and so will much of the occult literature from the 1600s (Gabalis). There is a code of silence and a lot of misinformation (magical nonsense) being put out there by the astral projection crowd in order to hide the plain and simple truth of it, "THE INVISIBLE MAN"." How simple is that? Is there some way to properly make these "pointers"? Would you care to germinate? CalFellows (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe I misunderstand where you were coming from and I'll have to read up on it more -but if you think think is an important aspect of Astral Projection then it probably needs it's own section and headers. So maybe an 'Astral Projection and Witchcraft' section-or 'Occult' section-and as long as the sources are good enough then I think it may be interesting Godfinger (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The initial description is what really needs some work, needs to point to the "Lemegeton" which is the most widely used guide to astral projection. Crowley fits right into it at that point (authored one revision), and then the points that I made would fit accordingly. If you want to see the fantasy nonsense (occult propoganda), just read Robert Bruces work: - tinyurl.com/289mld - CalFellows (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to best do that but what you say is interesting although it seems that the 'model' (maybe not the best word) you talk about doesn't seem like a model to me. The link to the 'game theory' paper I looked at and although interesting-could be considered 'original research' and may not be suitable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The other reference I just can't find and the link you provided doesn't lead anywhere.-Also I'm puzzled by the 'Invisible Man' analogy since the 'invisible man' had a physical body that became invisible which is quite different to the idea of some sort of Astral Body-which is what the initial description refers to.

However the Occult/Magickal tradition that you are referring to I'm sure has a lot of relevance to the article and I have often thought that some sort of 'History of Astral Projection' section would add value to this article-in which case the angle you are coming could be better incorporated into the article. Alternatively you could possibly add a subsection in the 'Projection Types' section and elaborate on what you have to say- mentioning the 'Lemegeton' and other classic works Godfinger (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, give me some time and let me think this one over. What I was speaking of is more of an expose', truth be told, and my thoughts are that it could well start a freaking flame war. You should have left it in place, or put it back; would have been nice to see the peeps stick their head up (a little action). CalFellows (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
An expose? Mmm. It sounds that you have an agenda here and I think it would run counter to certain Wikipedian guidlines-'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' for example. Of course there are many finer points of the argument here and I'm open minded about all sorts of issues so if you have something interesting to contribute go ahead.I'm not here to remove other peoples work if it adds value to the article and is in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines and policy. As for putting it back-well, as I said I don't think it had a place there and again, I had an issue with the source.However if you say that there is some sort of 'code of silence' or whatever you are trying to say then you need to back it up with a notable or reliable source. Even though you have some problem with Robert Bruce-he does seem to be a notable figure and so I think it is reasonable to refer to him even if you disagree with him. Maybe some other editors think differently and hopefully some other editor will have an opinion on this matter to help build consensus on what is and what is not appropriate to include in an article of this nature--Godfinger (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion, someone was pointing out that Near Death OBE and even Traumatic OBE is never mentioned. The initial description is what needs work, would give place to certain "passing mention" without turning this into a soapbox. CalFellows (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You could have a go at working at it if you think it needs it-but I think one of the problems we face is to differentiate Astral Projection from Out of body experiences and Near Death Experiences. I tend to think of Astral Projection as a way of inducing an OBE type experience which involves interacting with some sort of 'Astral World'.Of course, there may be other definitions-but I think it is something that has to be decided on so it defines the scope of the article. An OBE is simply what it says and it does lead to other types of approach-a physiological explanation for an OBE as opposed to Astral Projection as some sort of paranormal or occult activity. Hence there are different articles for what are arguably different phenomena albeit having certain similarities. So if you want to alter the description are you sure it is relevant to Astral Projection as such? Maybe it is relevant to another article--Godfinger (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)