Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

pluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Location: Paisley,Scotland UK

11 Dec 2008, 6:23 pm

Loborojo wrote:
Today I met another Aspie, a German woman I met on an excursion to Pyramids of Lambayeque here in Chiclayo in Peru. She said she was a shaman and psychic.

In the evening we were back in the city and something struck me when she got agitated by noises and and other things she said struck a chord.

I asked her if she knew about Asperger and I explained. She didn't believe and said it was just another syndrome invented by doctors.

She soon agreed we were both wired too sensitive and I couldn't convince her about Aspie traits and that I was one, she preferred to call us Indigo or Crystal children. She might register on WP. I gave her the adress. I said she could try and debate this here with her arguments. What do you think of her argument??


It's interesting that your shaman friend used the term 'Indigo' because I believe the colour indigo was invented simply to give the spectrum a mystical number of 7 colours rather than 6.
Personally,I don't believe Asperger's is invented because to me the various traits are very
real.Although I don't have an official diagnosis,when I first read Tony Attwood's book on
AS I was astonished how closely it reflected my own life. Even minor traits like walking without swinging my arms when I was a child are all too true. Although I always try to keep an open mind and believe that many people are genuinely psychic,I also believe that many people
genuinely have Asperger's.


_________________
I have lost the will to be apathetic


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Dec 2008, 9:09 pm

Loborojo wrote:
I rather call myself Indigo than aspie, has a rather nice feel and touch about it and is more poetic and less freaky, don't you think so?


Personally, I prefer to call myself autistic. It allows me to express my solidarity with autistics at all points along the spectrum.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Dec 2008, 9:11 pm

ephemerella wrote:
This is a good website. A lot of substantive information and ideas, both. It is educational and well-written.


Thank you. ;-)


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


whatamess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,284

12 Dec 2008, 3:55 am

I much more believe in the Indigo/Crystal view than the crazy psych view of doctors.

Before my son was diagnosed I found out about Indigo children. I bought a book and it seemed to me that most described my son, but NOT all...

Then I bought a book about Crystal children. Again, it seemed that most described my son, but NOT all...

The Indigo child/person is what most consider an ADD/ADHD type person...A Crystal child/adult is what most consider an Autistic person.

About a year later my son was diagnosed for the first time...his diagnosis was NOT Autism...it was BOTH, ADHD and Autism...
We had a second eval...I spoke with many moms and most of their kids had been diagnosed only with Autism...or only ADHD...so we went to get a second diagnosis from a well known doctor that diagnosed most of the other kids as well...Her diagnosis for our son? Both ADHD and Autistic...

Which is probably why when I read both books, neither described my son 100%, but both had 99% of the qualities in my son...

It has been amazing to see how my son gets along so well with certain children...I could never figure out at first why he was so attracted by X, but not by Z child...as time has passed, and I have learned more about Autism, I have realized that those kids that at 3 years old my son felt most comfortable with, and still does, are kids who eventually WERE diagnosed with ADHD/Autism...or who have not been diagnosed because their parents don't want to believe it, but as they have started school the teachers have begun to question the parents and suggested they be evaluated...



lionesss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,305
Location: not anywhere near you

12 Dec 2008, 2:46 pm

whatamess wrote:
I much more believe in the Indigo/Crystal view than the crazy psych view of doctors.

Before my son was diagnosed I found out about Indigo children. I bought a book and it seemed to me that most described my son, but NOT all...

Then I bought a book about Crystal children. Again, it seemed that most described my son, but NOT all...

The Indigo child/person is what most consider an ADD/ADHD type person...A Crystal child/adult is what most consider an Autistic person.

About a year later my son was diagnosed for the first time...his diagnosis was NOT Autism...it was BOTH, ADHD and Autism...
We had a second eval...I spoke with many moms and most of their kids had been diagnosed only with Autism...or only ADHD...so we went to get a second diagnosis from a well known doctor that diagnosed most of the other kids as well...Her diagnosis for our son? Both ADHD and Autistic...

Which is probably why when I read both books, neither described my son 100%, but both had 99% of the qualities in my son...

It has been amazing to see how my son gets along so well with certain children...I could never figure out at first why he was so attracted by X, but not by Z child...as time has passed, and I have learned more about Autism, I have realized that those kids that at 3 years old my son felt most comfortable with, and still does, are kids who eventually WERE diagnosed with ADHD/Autism...or who have not been diagnosed because their parents don't want to believe it, but as they have started school the teachers have begun to question the parents and suggested they be evaluated...


Yes I agree with everything you said. If you want to talk more about this, PM me because I am happy to chat. But as far as other parents not wanting to diagnose their kids, sadly a lot of them are in denial about it.. but it ALWAYS in the end comes up either way. Just like when the teachers push that the kids are once and for all evaluated because something is "not right".


_________________
Come chat about the mystical side and everyday part of life on http://esotericden.proboards.com -The Esoteric Den!! !


pluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Location: Paisley,Scotland UK

12 Dec 2008, 3:25 pm

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
nominalist wrote:
Yes, but it is more than that. David Icke, a conspiracy theorist, is the person who popularized the idea that there are actually Reptillian people among us. He sees them as being in charge of the supposed "Illuminati." Icke means that literally. He really believes they are Reptillian (reptillian brains, etc.).


I have read Icke's book "Tales From The Time Loop" and seen a few of his lectures online. Even though I am positively sure a higher force or being does control us, I'm not so sure that the world's leaders are reptiles. However, if you get past the reptile stuff most of Icke's theories tend to be very true IMO.


I know it's going off topic somewhat,but I also think David Icke speaks a lot of sense and
shouldn't be judged without reading his books.He predicted that the flawed concept of 'money'
would prove to be worthless and suggested that communities will start to trade by exchanging skills and products instead of money.This will be just one of the consequences of the world
moving to a higher consciousness in general.Maybe Indigo children are part of that process (he says,contriving to return to the original topic)


_________________
I have lost the will to be apathetic


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

12 Dec 2008, 5:36 pm

I agree that there is something changing in human consciousness. I think we are on a verge of a great leap in human evolution.
There is much to explore in regards to the mind but we can't do it if we don't think for ourselves. I'm so tired of people claiming to be scientific yet they are so unwilling to experiment with the idea of the possibility that energy can exist without a physical body. The brain is underused and undervalued.
When a placebo affect healing occurs, they dismiss it and say it's all in the mind. We have so much untapped potential.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

13 Dec 2008, 3:32 am

i am my parents child



aquaremedy
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 1

11 Nov 2010, 9:01 am

I know I'm a crystal child, but aspie, not sure, I don't think I am...



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

11 Nov 2010, 9:48 am

Yes.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


MindBlind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,341

11 Nov 2010, 11:35 am

Yes, I've heard about this and I must tell you that aspies are neither crystal nor indigo children. Why? Because Crystal/indigo children don't exist. It's a load of crap and that woman is either lying, extremely naive, extremely stupid or mentally ill.

Sorry for the angry tone of my message, but I hate this "alternative science" crap. These people fool innocent people into thinking that real medicine is bad for you and that real doctors are harmful, so people don't get the help that they need, even if they have a serious condition. People lie to the parents of children with ADHD, Autism, LD's, Mental retardation and even mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, telling them that they are psychic and not actually disabled. I find it abhorrent that these children suffer and don't get the help that they need because their parents are in so much denial and are so naive or stupid or equally disturbed that they refuse to see a professional.

If I was in your position, I would have told her, outright, that her stance on medicine and her beliefs were harmful to society and especially to vulnerable people such as the mentally disabled/mentally ill.

also:

Magnus wrote:
I agree that there is something changing in human consciousness. I think we are on a verge of a great leap in human evolution.
There is much to explore in regards to the mind but we can't do it if we don't think for ourselves. I'm so tired of people claiming to be scientific yet they are so unwilling to experiment with the idea of the possibility that energy can exist without a physical body. The brain is underused and undervalued.
When a placebo affect healing occurs, they dismiss it and say it's all in the mind. We have so much untapped potential.


What on EARTH are you talking about? Humans are CONSTANTLY evolving! Evolution doesn't work like in Pokemon; as long as humans are reproducing and passing their genetic information onto the next generation and as long as the environment changes (and it does) then we are always evolving. Also, no scientist is "unwilling to experiment with the idea of the possibility that energy can exist without a physical body. " (whatever that means). A scientist always pursues the truth. What a scientist doesn't do is that they don't say that something is true until they have a sufficient amount of evidence to support their hypothesis. I mean, there could very well be pink unicorns on the planet earth, but we don't make the claim that it's true and most of us would dismiss that because we don't have enough evidence to support that.

And, yes - we do have a lot of potential, but that doesn't mean that we're closed minded just because we don't believe that humans have the ability to use psychic powers or if psychic powers are even possible. If you want to test your potential, why don't you learm a skill that you've never done before, like learning how to play music or learning how to draw. At least it's more productive than mentlly masturbating about how you can "connect to the other side".



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

11 Nov 2010, 12:35 pm

MindBlind wrote:
Yes, I've heard about this and I must tell you that aspies are neither crystal nor indigo children. Why? Because Crystal/indigo children don't exist. It's a load of crap and that woman is either lying, extremely naive, extremely stupid or mentally ill.

Sorry for the angry tone of my message, but I hate this "alternative science" crap. These people fool innocent people into thinking that real medicine is bad for you and that real doctors are harmful, so people don't get the help that they need, even if they have a serious condition. People lie to the parents of children with ADHD, Autism, LD's, Mental retardation and even mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, telling them that they are psychic and not actually disabled. I find it abhorrent that these children suffer and don't get the help that they need because their parents are in so much denial and are so naive or stupid or equally disturbed that they refuse to see a professional.

If I was in your position, I would have told her, outright, that her stance on medicine and her beliefs were harmful to society and especially to vulnerable people such as the mentally disabled/mentally ill.

also:

Magnus wrote:
I agree that there is something changing in human consciousness. I think we are on a verge of a great leap in human evolution.
There is much to explore in regards to the mind but we can't do it if we don't think for ourselves. I'm so tired of people claiming to be scientific yet they are so unwilling to experiment with the idea of the possibility that energy can exist without a physical body. The brain is underused and undervalued.
When a placebo affect healing occurs, they dismiss it and say it's all in the mind. We have so much untapped potential.


What on EARTH are you talking about? Humans are CONSTANTLY evolving! Evolution doesn't work like in Pokemon; as long as humans are reproducing and passing their genetic information onto the next generation and as long as the environment changes (and it does) then we are always evolving. Also, no scientist is "unwilling to experiment with the idea of the possibility that energy can exist without a physical body. " (whatever that means). A scientist always pursues the truth. What a scientist doesn't do is that they don't say that something is true until they have a sufficient amount of evidence to support their hypothesis. I mean, there could very well be pink unicorns on the planet earth, but we don't make the claim that it's true and most of us would dismiss that because we don't have enough evidence to support that.

And, yes - we do have a lot of potential, but that doesn't mean that we're closed minded just because we don't believe that humans have the ability to use psychic powers or if psychic powers are even possible. If you want to test your potential, why don't you learm a skill that you've never done before, like learning how to play music or learning how to draw. At least it's more productive than mentlly masturbating about how you can "connect to the other side".


While I agree in principle with much of what you said, I must point out that science does not deal in truth. In fact, all that science can address is that which can be empirically measured and derived. Before one can assume that science is sufficient for describing reality one would have to prove that ALL things knowable are knowable through scientific method and that no reliable knowledge can be derived by any other method.



hartzofspace
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,138
Location: On the Road Less Traveled

11 Nov 2010, 12:58 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
While I agree in principle with much of what you said, I must point out that science does not deal in truth. In fact, all that science can address is that which can be empirically measured and derived. Before one can assume that science is sufficient for describing reality one would have to prove that ALL things knowable are knowable through scientific method and that no reliable knowledge can be derived by any other method.

I have to say that I agree with this. 8)


_________________
Dreams are renewable. No matter what our age or condition, there are still untapped possibilities within us and new beauty waiting to be born.
-- Dr. Dale Turner


Maolcolm
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 168

11 Nov 2010, 1:22 pm

hartzofspace wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
While I agree in principle with much of what you said, I must point out that science does not deal in truth. In fact, all that science can address is that which can be empirically measured and derived. Before one can assume that science is sufficient for describing reality one would have to prove that ALL things knowable are knowable through scientific method and that no reliable knowledge can be derived by any other method.


I have to say that I agree with this. 8)


I agree too. I'm pleasantly surprised. :)



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

11 Nov 2010, 1:23 pm

hartzofspace wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
While I agree in principle with much of what you said, I must point out that science does not deal in truth. In fact, all that science can address is that which can be empirically measured and derived. Before one can assume that science is sufficient for describing reality one would have to prove that ALL things knowable are knowable through scientific method and that no reliable knowledge can be derived by any other method.

I have to say that I agree with this. 8)


Science is a reliable tool for describing PHYSICAL reality as we've come to know it through our senses.

Science can't measure what cannot be measured physically. BTW, I would have to say that science does not deal in "truth" per se. It deals in observations and bases its theories around what we have come to understand SO FAR in accordance with the best available evidence.

However, personally, I'm not inclined to believe that which there is absolutely no evidence for and for which I have no personal reason to believe.

"Crystal Children/Blue People" = tthhhhpppttttt. If someone wants me to believe otherwise, kindly present tangible evidence. Failing that, I've no more reason to take you seriously than I do any other person who wants me to believe any manner of outlandish statements.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Maolcolm
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 168

11 Nov 2010, 1:55 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Science is a reliable tool for describing PHYSICAL reality as we've come to know it through our senses.


Yes, although this boundary is being blurred somewhat with the discoveries of quantum physics. I always think that if more people were aware of the truly bizarre theories and discoveries of quantum physics then they would be far less likely to be derisive about some of the metaphysical and 'new age' types of ideas out there.

The Universe has already been scientifically established to be infinitely weirder than many of seem to realize or allow for. Essentially, the classically 'physical' world we perceive and see as 'reality', does not actually exist. That "matter does not exist" is something that you will be just as likely to hear an eminent quantum physicist say as a spiritual guru of Advaita Vedanta:

"I can tell you, I have spent 50 years of my life doing research into the question of what is matter, and the outcome is matter does not exist!" - Hans-Peter Durr, Nuclear Physicist, Former Director Max Planck Institute.

Therefore I tend not to rule things out too quickly and try to retain an open mind.