Jump to content

Radionics


Corcoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have only just recently started reading up a little on radionics and don't know very much about it. Is anyone here familiar with this concept? I gather that it can be used for healing purposes and from some further reading I have done, can even be used to manifest desired outcomes in people's lives.

 

I hope this is the correct forum to post this in, I wasn't quite sure which to choose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you want to knpow the history of radionics do some research on "Doctor" Albert Abrams. He only killed a "few" patients before having his license to practice medicine was pulled. And, yes, the topic has been discussed at length on TTI in the past.

 

Here's the question to ask yourself: your child has been diagnosed with cancer. This guy comes along and says that he can use a quartz crystal, a light bulb, a box with some resistors and coils inside and a "witness plate" and he will cure your child of cancer. He doesn't even have to be present with your child, he can do this from afar. A lock of hair will do. Do you go for it? Not as a last ditch effort when everything else has failed but right now because you "believe"? No debate, no equivication - yes or no. Do you put your child's life in this person's hands?

 

That's Radionics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next look up the HDR "time travel" device. Same-same. It's advertised as a time travel machine and a medical diagnosis and curative device based on radionics.

 

That too has been discussed at length here. There's a sucker born every minute who is willing to part with $375. Likewise, there's a grifter born every minute who is more than willing to take the sucker's $375 with no regrets, apology or forwarding address.

 

Cororan, it's wonderful that you are a spiritual person. Spirituality is the foundation of society. But being spiritual doesn't mean painting a target on your forehead that says "kick me".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corcoran,

 

I believe in voodoo and magic, although I don't practice them. I know some people who are involved in the Wicca religion and they have wands and spellbooks and things. They tend to spell magic the old fashioned way, magick.

You are only getting half the story, my friend. If you are going to invoke the work of Crowley (magick), then you need to invoke ALL of his work, not just the squishy New Agey stuff that people who hate (or can't understand) science love to invoke.

 

You might be surprised to know that I am a deep student of Crowley's work and know a LOT about the Golden Dawn and the A:.A:. In 1982, after first being introduced to the Tree Of Life, I embarked on a journey to connect many mystical concepts with scientific truths, many of which said mystical concepts actually imply. Well, I am hopeful that you are aware of one of Crowley's more important tag lines: "We place no reliance on virgin or pidgeon. Our method is science, our aim is religion."

 

What that refers to is that, yes, mankind IS a spiritual being and should be pursuing spiritual goals. However, to ensure appropriate balance, mankind should also be invoking that compendium of knowledge and wisdom that has allowed him to rise from the muck and become more than just another animal. That compendium is science. Unfortunately, while I see plenty of spiritual emphasis by you, I see virtually no scientific emphasis. And THAT is the problem that, more than likely, will lead people to label you as one of those "daft, touchy-feely New Agers."

 

There is another quote, by a much more scientifically esteemed man, that also fits here: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Substitute the word "spirituality" for "religion" if you wish (I like it better that way, myself).

 

Magick is not merely about "belief and saying the proper incantations." Magick is about employing the science of the universe, in conjunction with your personal power, to achieve your stated goals. And this is precisely why Crowley insisted on the "magick" spelling...to distinguish it from the non-scientific claptrap.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, while I see plenty of spiritual emphasis by you, I see virtually no scientific emphasis. And THAT is the problem that, more than likely, will lead people to label you as one of those "daft, touchy-feely New Agers."

I have a lot of respect for science as a subject, although I find areas of it confusing and difficult to get my head around (I'm much better at English, having a degree in English and Writing. I can write poetry, stories, etc...)

 

As I said, I do, however, have great respect for the sciences and recognise their value and importance. Without them, the world would be a lot more dull (no TV, no Internet, no stereo systems, etc) and we would not have all the medical advances that exist today.

 

However, at this stage in my life, I am more interested in studying spirituality than studying science; I prefer to leave that to people who have more of a talent for the subject and who are better suited for it. The fact is, science is not my forte, subjects like English, creative writing, Drama and History are. I would not expect a scientist to spend much time studying English if it wasn't his best subject or wasn't his main area of interest, and the same is true of myself - I have a lot of respect for the subject but don't wish, at this point, to study much of it. I prefer to let others study it and share the benefits of whatever results their study brings.

 

Finally, if anyone is going to label me as a "daft, touchy feely New Ager", then I think that says more about their own narrow-mindedness and prejudices than it does about me. There is nothing wrong with being a New Ager, and most New Agers are certainly not daft. Also, I'm not, as a rule, touchy feely - at least not when sober. When drunk, however, that's another matter. When I'm drunk I quite happily hug people and sing to my heart's content. Getting drunk is such fun! I don't worry about a thing then.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corcoran,

 

I think you may have missed the point...

 

However, at this stage in my life, I am more interested in studying spirituality than studying science; I prefer to leave that to people who have more of a talent for the subject and who are better suited for it.

The point of me sharing the quotes from Crowley and Einstein was to point out how one-sided it is, in this scientific age, to say you are going to study spirituality without also pursuing a grounding of that study in the science of what is possible. It leads to false beliefs, at best, and can lead to suicide cults, at the very worst. Just because someone you believe sounds sincere spouts some rhetoric that you think sounds real, does not mean it is real. If I told you that I was created by the cross breeding of a human and an alien, and that makes me spiritually advanced, and I am here to save humanity, and you thought that sounded pretty good... can you see how not applying scientific rigor to such things might lead to very bad endings?

 

The fact is, science is not my forte, subjects like English, creative writing, Drama and History are.

The fact it is not your forte does not mean it is a good idea to completely ignore it in your spiritual pursuits. In fact, those who have done so have turned out to be the ones who have been most abused by spiritual con men.

 

I would not expect a scientist to spend much time studying English if it wasn't his best subject or wasn't his main area of interest

True, but that is not a similar analogy. The similar analogy would be if a scientist decided, because he is not good with English, that he just was not going to use English to communicate his scientific findings. Instead, he would just draw diagrams. Sounds a bit silly, huh? In reality, scientists need to be proficient in English (maybe not as proficient as a poet or professional writer) to convey their thoughts. In the same vein, to prevent yourself from wholesale adoption of impossible spiritual concepts, it would be a balanced approach for you to at least see what science has to say about some spiritual claims.

 

I prefer to let others study it and share the benefits of whatever results their study brings.

Right. So when people of science bring evidence that refutes someone else's wild spiritual claim, what do you do with that? Do you accept it and admit "well, I guess that spiritual idea is not supported by the facts", or do you make excuses and use the non-scientific platitude of "well, we don't really know all the things that are possible...it IS possible that some guy died and rose from the dead three days later...even though this story has been part of myths that go far back before even the time of Jesus."

 

You see the difference? You have exhibited tendencies to allow "spirituality" to act as a cover for scammers. The deal with churchhead was a perfect example. You liked his spiritual message, and you "felt" you could believe him. So that belief allowed you to overlook the actions by him that clearly show him as a fraud, hoaxter, and someone NOT really interested in your spiritual well-being. All the signs were there, but you appeared to overlook them, or at least give him a pass. That is ignoring science, instead of "sharing the benefits" that science brings. Science is about looking at all the evidence, not just the stuff you like.

 

Finally, if anyone is going to label me as a "daft, touchy feely New Ager", then I think that says more about their own narrow-mindedness and prejudices than it does about me. There is nothing wrong with being a New Ager, and most New Agers are certainly not daft.

That is a generalist statement that is certainly not supported by the facts, as related in my statements above. A GREAT MANY New Agers ignore science that shows their beliefs are incorrect, just because what they believe makes them feel good. According to some of the synonyms for "daft" (foolish or simple), that does, indeed, make them daft. How about the people from the Heaven's Gate cult? They are the ones that committed mass suicide in a mansion near San Diego back in the 90s because their "spiritual leader" told them they had to go meet up with a spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Given how WRONG their spiritual beliefs were, look what it lead them to do! That is pretty much a definition of daft.

 

Also, I'm not, as a rule, touchy feely - at least not when sober. When drunk, however, that's another matter. When I'm drunk I quite happily hug people and sing to my heart's content. Getting drunk is such fun! I don't worry about a thing then.

Sorry, I was using "touchy-feely" as an idiom, not as a literal description. HERE is the meaning I was intending to convey:

 

"2. Based on sentiment or intuition, especially to the exclusion of critical judgment"

 

Hope that clears that up. I am not trying to poke fun at you. Indeed, I am suggesting that just by allowing science to act as a cross-check to your spiritual pursuits, you could possibly avoid some wasted effort, it not some embarassing moments that may come about by a spiritual scammer.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, at this stage in my life, I am more interested in studying spirituality than studying science;

 

I find myself wondering.........what exactly IS 'spirituality' ? It does seem a rather vague term.

 

Hmm. Radionics. Belongs alongside Wilhelm Reich and his 'orgone generator'...or L. Ron Hubbard and 'Dianetics'. All a load of utter baloney.

 

In my younger days I used to read such stuff.......but that was before I found science far more interesting and fascinating. And more importantly, science is the tool one uses to determine what is baloney and what isn't.

 

As Rainman says, a scientific understanding is essential in any quest for 'the truth'. Places like the spiritual forum are full of people who believe just exactly what they want to...with no sense of need for evidence or validation. Fine, if one just wants a panacea for the mind. But if like me you want to cut to the chase and get to the real heart of things......knowledge of science is essential.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but that was before I found science far more interesting and fascinating.

That's partly my point, though - you are clearly very interested in science, but if a person does not have a major interest in a certain subject, it can be very difficult for them to motivate themselves to study it at any great length or read up on it. I used to enjoy subjects like English and History but a number of my schoolmates found the subjects boring or difficult and once they were out of the classroom promptly turned their minds away from whatever they had learned, and I would bet have not read an English or historical textbook since leaving school.

 

There are some areas of science that interest me and I genuinely do have a lot of respect for the sciences. (I'm also always really pleased whenever a scientifically-minded person expresses respect or admiration for the humanities subjects.) But, generally, if given the choice to read a scientific text or, for example, a book of poetry, I would choose the book of poetry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think too many people imagine that scientific topics will be mind bogglingly hard to understand. But in fact there's any number of books...mostly written by scientists....that express quite succinctly the basic concepts of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc, without a single maths equation.

 

Indeed, some scientists approach the subject from a stance that you would probably like a lot. For example, Professor Paul Davies writes very well, and is a believer in teleology ( meaning behind the universe )......he makes quite a good case ( though not scientifically proven ) for the idea that conscious beings ( us ) have somehow retrospectively manipulated the universe to allow for our existence. Fascinating reading. Well worth reading a few of his many books..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's partly my point, though - you are clearly very interested in science, but if a person does not have a major interest in a certain subject, it can be very difficult for them to motivate themselves to study it at any great length or read up on it. (snip)

 

There are some areas of science that interest me and I genuinely do have a lot of respect for the sciences. (I'm also always really pleased whenever a scientifically-minded person expresses respect or admiration for the humanities subjects.) But, generally, if given the choice to read a scientific text or, for example, a book of poetry, I would choose the book of poetry.

Believe me, I understand your point. In fact, I understood it the first time you made it. Now what I hope you will do is show that you understand my point, and then address it. Your point is one of personal choice, and I understand that. You would rather not deal with science because you do not have an interest in it. I got it. But my point is not one that involves simple personal choice, but rather involves something much, much, much more important: establishing truth and veracity. Without applying science, how do you ascertain what is truth, and what is bunk, with regard to your investigations into spirituality? Let me help you with an answer: You cannot. That is why this is more important that personal choice. Without INTEGRATING science and scientific knowledge with your spiritual investigations, you do not have a viable means to ensure you do not become one of those people who is lead astray by a spiritual hoaxer (up to and including committing suicide because they have so convinced you their spiritual ideas are truth).

 

So once again, I understand your point of personal choice. But now will you accede to and address my point of establishing truth? Because right now it looks like you are ignoring it.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, I understand your point. In fact, I understood it the first time you made it. Now what I hope you will do is show that you understand my point, and then address it. Your point is one of personal choice, and I understand that. You would rather not deal with science because you do not have an interest in it. I got it. But my point is not one that involves simple personal choice, but rather involves something much, much, much more important: establishing truth and veracity. Without applying science, how do you ascertain what is truth, and what is bunk, with regard to your investigations into spirituality? Let me help you with an answer: You cannot. That is why this is more important that personal choice. Without INTEGRATING science and scientific knowledge with your spiritual investigations, you do not have a viable means to ensure you do not become one of those people who is lead astray by a spiritual hoaxer (up to and including committing suicide because they have so convinced you their spiritual ideas are truth).

 

So once again, I understand your point of personal choice. But now will you accede to and address my point of establishing truth? Because right now it looks like you are ignoring it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your post. I responded to Twighlight's and was going to come back later but I ended up going to bed instead (I was tired.)

 

I think I understand what you were saying. You are not saying that I should throw myself wholeheartedly in to science and study it all day, every day and make myself knowledgeable about all areas and read up on it to the point where I neglect everything else. But you are saying that I probably need some level of scientific awareness in order to help me decide for myself which claims/stories are most likely false and which ones are more likely to be possible. I suppose what I now believe you to be saying is that I should try to take heed of what science has to say and apply it when necessary.

 

And yes, I agree that would be useful, and I want to make it clear that I do not ignore what science has to say, it's simply not something I focus on a great deal, compared to other subjects - not just spirituality, but also subjects poetry.

 

When I read your original post I interpreted it more as you telling me that science was of greater importance than other subjects/topics which I am interested in and that I should neglect these in order to pursue a subject which you see as being more worthy of attention. I assume now, though, that that is not what you meant.

 

It's not quite right to say that I have no interest in science at all. Science is a very broad subject so there are areas in which I have an interest, it's simply not the prevailing interest in my life.

 

In general, though, I regard a subject such as science as being a great and intellectual subject which has done a lot for society and with which I believe we are the better for. I think it's important for people of different fields to have respect for other subjects, as they each have their merits and worth. For example, I currently have a biography of Richard Feynman from the library (I thought it might be interesting to read about his life.) I've been flicking through it (have yet to begin to read it properly) and one thing that disappoints me is his attitude to subjects such as English and Philosophy and humanities subjects in general. He did not seem, at least in his younger days, to have a great deal of respect for them and seemed to view them as being inferior to the sciences and mathematics and somehow not as intellectual, which is a view I completely disagree with. A quote in the biography states one of his attitudes as being, for example, that "English spelling was ridiculous and unnecessary to learn and did not represent intellectual development, or so he thought."

 

So I strongly get the impression that, at least in his days as a student, he had very little respect for English/the humanities. I appreciate that his expertise and his level of interest was mainly in mathematics and physics, but I simply feel it was a shame that at that point, he couldn't seem to see that the humanities had their own worth and a great intellectual value (just a diffent kind of intellectual value to maths and science.) I hope his views changed as he grew older.

 

I am in no way trying to criticise Mr Feynman here, as I recognise what a great mind he was. I was just disappointed in what I saw as a rather narrow way of thinking.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

corcoran,

 

i experimented with radionics once, briefly, about 9 yrs ago. to be honest and short, it kinda freaked me out a little and I have not gone back to it. I think the elusive part about it is that it is based on frequencies that need to be very precise, and this leads to many many failed attempts and thus a lack of serious scientific research on the topic.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don;t know how to add a diagram... but here is text to the basic device.. Have fun.

 

RADIONIC BOX

 

This is your standard tool. It works the same way as the radio unit but is self contained.

 

In order to make this device, you will need:

 

1 box, a simple shoe box or gift box will work fine. Just avoid metal containers because metal screws up the energies.

 

1 can

 

2 screws and nut.

 

1 plastic lid like from a coffee can or cat food can.

 

3 rotary potentiometers, the ohm value does not matter.

 

3 knobs

 

2 1/8? monaural jacks.

 

wire, both insulated and uninsulated.

 

2 quartz crystals

 

Begin by opening the box and laying the bottom of it aside. Now, lay out the can in the left upper corner of the box, the lid in the right upper corner, the three knobs a bit lower between them and the jacks, one in each lower corner. Mark these spots with a pencil.

 

Now carefully punch holes for the two screws in the bottom of the can. Lay the can on the spot you marked and mark on the box lid where the holes you punched are.

 

Carefully punch holes where those markings are.

 

Now, punch a hole for each potentiometer stem, two small holes under the center of where the lid will be and one hole in each corner for the jacks.

 

Take two lengths of the unshielded wire and wrap them around the crystals with a short length left over at each end. Once you have done this, attach a short length of the regular wire to each end of the crystal wires by wrapping the exposed wire (I assume you have stripped the ends) to the crystal wires. This will give you two crystals with a length of wire at each end.

 

Now, attach these wires to the potentiometers so the three pots are in series as in the diagram with the crystals between them.

 

Now, wire the jacks to the end pots as in the diagram. Be sure the wires are long enough to reach the assigned holes in the box lid.

 

Make a coil of unshielded wire which will fit under the can lid and place it on the outside of the box lid with the ends of the wire running through the holes into the box.

 

Glue the plastic can lid in place over the coil.

 

With the screws attach the can to the box lid in its assigned corner.

 

Turn the box lid over and attach the pots on the underside of the box lid so the stems protrude out to the outside of it.

 

Repeat the procedure with the jacks.

 

Connect the wire from the coil to the pot at the right end and to the right screw of the can as in the diagram.

 

Connect a wire from the left pot to the left screw of the can as in the diagram.

 

Turn the box lid over and attach the knobs to the pots.

 

Put the box lid back on the box.

 

And there you have it. You now have a working radionic box. Go to Radio Shack and get the right patch cables so you can connect the helmet to it and you?ll be all set.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because there is no power source identified, and so no (appreciable) energy will flow thru this device... thank goodness!

LOL

 

Ok, that made me laugh, 'cause it's true. :D

 

Of course, I'm sure they'll say "oh, but it's not supposed to be ELECTRICAL energy so we don't need an electrical power source! Nevermind the fact that we use electronic components..." ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
I have only just recently started reading up a little on radionics and don't know very much about it. Is anyone here familiar with this concept? I gather that it can be used for healing purposes and from some further reading I have done, can even be used to manifest desired outcomes in people's lives.

I hope this is the correct forum to post this in, I wasn't quite sure which to choose.

 

Radionics is just an old name for a discipline of science that didn't take off, or was swept under the secrecy rug, because the majority of scientists weren't satisfied with giving one scientist the credit for his research, or following his lead/inspiration and adding to his research, or shunned from development due to government defense measures. What can heal can also kill when not used properly. Now I think it's called spintronics or scalar energy, or zero point energy. The crystals of radionics are just lab-grown and miniaturized these days.

 

Go find some physics articles about how scientists are trying to use frequencies to kill bacteria/viruses. New generation, new name, same old stuff, just more refined.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Radionics. Belongs alongside Wilhelm Reich and his 'orgone generator'...or L. Ron Hubbard and 'Dianetics'. All a load of utter baloney....

The baloney just gets repackaged the more decades you're around. It's just what is prevalent, and it's mostly dependent of acceptance of vocabulary terms.

 

I went through those materials too for a while, chucked them in the "cult" file and went on. Then came to reading about ELF and Schumann resonances, LIDA machines and Russian woodpecker machines, and the modern US military S-quad technology.

 

Then I realized that if you take the ELF waves and multiply them by 5 you get their tone scale; so the Schumann resonance is around 8, their tone scale is up to 40. It's not all cult. Sometimes it's not about if it works, but who is it working for?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
  • 5 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...