Let’s get a bit wild. Let’s say you have a haunting. How many of you follow this research? Ghost hunters anybody?

I’m not a hunter, but I believe in them and I like shows about haunting though I sometimes question the accuracy. The accuracy is specious, but I’m just checking if we have a perceptual model here I can use.

Hauntings are generally viewed as an invasion by humans. Even though there is no physical challenge to their place or well being, the presence of this haunting is still greeted with disturbance. Which by the way creates an astral turbulence, as well as a thought form masking that makes the ghost seem to be the monster you think it is. This is why the entities behaviour often seems to run counter to its appearance.

That happens with living people we know, so I can image how it would happen more so where the physical form is mutable. Yes. We distort our perceptions of living human beings as well.

Ok. So they call in an exorcist, who if they succeed, succeed because they can establish a neutralizing psychic condition in that environment. Much of the wording of their ritual is to cow the haunting spirit into submission. If this ghost was Christian it works like a charm, but sometimes they are dealing with something that doesn’t subscribe to the Christian paradigm.

And they’ll find it very funny? Yes, or irritating. Often irritating. It often irritates just because of the astral mess their ceremony creates. Like someone taking a dump in your living room, and they say the adversary is Lord of the Flies. 😀 Often the aftermath of a Christian exorcism is a perceived possession. The exorcist succeeds in convincing a young person they are in danger, and an astral parasite uses this to feed from the young or vulnerable person.

What the priest is doing would likely be more scary then the ghost. Like a doctor saying I have cancer? Then “Oops, my bad, I was wrong, but you now have heart problems.” Yes. So back down to earth?

When you have a conflict you have the same basic choices:

• Establish neutrality, and continue your function with the necessary additional adaptation.
• Create a fight, and expend energy trying to defeat the energy of this person who seems to be working at cross purposes to you. In that situation both parties are depleted and nothing is actually left whole. You might get your way, but it will cost you.
• Or the third. There is always a third point by the way. This is to learn how their energy and your energy can both actualize, and borrow from their energy as you give to their energy. Have both parties come out whole and even enhanced, thus reducing the likelihood of any future conflicts.

The win-win model? As the world is becoming more interdependent it’s becoming more important. Well yes, but I have found that model underdeveloped and a bit short sighted.

How so? Too much compromise? I suppose it can go to the lowest common denominator which is bad. Well, let’s start from your intention. You actually have to do more than just establish a win-win in that conflict. That’s what I spoke of when I said borrowing energy from them. You came into conflict for a reason, and you can adopt the energy of that conflict for your own use. Because even if you establish a win-win with them and preserve your intention unchanged, you will in all likelihood come up against conflict yet again. People really only come up with a limited number of paradigms, even though there are countless variations.

Ah yes, the idea that a problem can’t be solved in the same state of mind that created it. A new view is required to build further? Yes, and the conflict is the source of that view. Essentially a fire (your energy) gets bigger or it goes out.

And the movie repeats if you don’t see it differently. Exactly.

Yet it causes discomfort so many avoid it altogether? They prefer the devil they know, and their perceived privilege of whining about it. Essentially, to achieve what they want they need more “power”, and power is readily at hand. But power is a burden, and well… there is the “power corrupts” BS.

For instance if one is being untruthful, yet continues to insist that what they assert is actuality, this would create a great deal of conflict on many levels. Exactly. Indeed it does. It’s now the basis by which psychologists evaluate psychosis. Not some absolute model, but by the degree to which an individual can functionally agree with the environment/society.

That’s scary. Scary yes, and expedient. Moralism is instituted for expediencies sake. This is why Taoism speaks against it, because it denies the natural progression of events and depletes an individuals energy making them little able to adapt.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~