Lester Levenson - Psychology Today

Can Anything Be Possible?
Story of a man named Lester Levenson ,

creator of Sedona Method.
How to radically expand beyond the limits of human thoughts
by Pamela Gerloff
Posted Apr 19, 2011
Once there was a man named Lester Levenson, creator of Sedona Method. His books
include "No Attachments, No Aversions" and "Keys to Ultimate Freedom". I know
former students of his. One day when he was in his early forties, doctors sent him
home from the hospital, giving him only a few months to live. There was nothing to be
done, they said. His heart was so weak he was instructed not even to tie his own
shoelaces, lest the exertion cause him to drop dead.
Now Lester Levenson, being a thinking kind of guy, decided he had been stupid to
have gotten himself into this position. So Lester set about to correct things.
Overwhelmed with a fear of dying, he began to examine his predicament. He
concluded that it was his feelings that were causing all his problems, not others or
the world, as he had previously thought. He also discovered that each of us has an
inborn capacity to release our negative feelings. So he began to systematically let go
of every negative emotion he was experiencing.
Within a few months Lester Levenson was completely healthy and, even more
astounding, had attained a state of inner peace and happiness that he had not
previously imagined possible, a state he called "imperturbability." Some would call it
enlightenment. Eventually, Lester taught others how to do this for themselves, some
of whom have been teaching his method for more than a quarter of a century.
Lester Levenson stands out for me for two reasons. First, because after he had
attained this state he found that he could heal people and fix objects, such as broken
TVs, merely by "seeing them as perfect." More on that in a later post.
Second, I recall a student of Lester Levenson once explaining to me how he and his
fellow students used to go about removing the self-imposed limitations of their own
minds. Here's how it worked: Whenever Lester would say something that seemed
outrageously impossible to them--and this apparently happened often--they would
gather together, usually in a local diner, and try to think up hypothetical explanations
for how the weird thing Lester had just said might be possible. For instance, Lester
would say something like, "If a nuclear bomb were to go off right now next to you, you
wouldn't have to be affected by it."
Whoa, their minds would go. So off to the diner they would traipse. They'd say to
each other, "Well, what if it works like this..." Or "What if this...." Or, "Maybe if you
think of it like this..." As they did this, their own limiting beliefs would gradually fall
away, leaving them with a much-expanded mindset. If they did this long enough,
eventually they would grasp the principle Lester was trying to impart--and voilá, they
were now at a whole new level of consciousness, in which the kinds of things Lester
had talked about actually began to happen for them.
Like the time a hold-up happened in the diner while they were discussing the very
idea that if you really understood the principle of personal sovereignty you did not
need to be affected by conditions or events that affected everyone else. Precisely
while the robbery was occurring--in the very room in which the students were
sitting--not one of them even noticed it. Nor were they bothered by the gunman, as
the other patrons had been. Lester Levenson's possibility-expanding students found
out about the robbery only after the fact, when the police arrived several minutes
later to investigate.
That's what I call the Possibility Principle at work. Lester's students, by letting their
minds play with a belief, as in "What if it might be possible?" managed to shift their
own belief systems enough to allow it to become true in their direct experience. In
essence, they gave their left-brain, logical mind something to quiet it down, so that it
stopped censoring the experience of what's actually possible in a world that hangs
together differently than most of us have been taught.
In recent years scientific and metaphysical frameworks have emerged that provide
plausible explanations for how such seemingly unbelievable things might occur--to
be saved, of course, for another post.
Until then, next time you hear something you're tempted to dismiss as "Impossible!"
why not try a Lester on it? Spend some time playfully brainstorming all the ways that
explain how it might possibly, just maybe could occur...if your own mind were
expanded enough to let it in.
I'm aware, by the way, that you may not believe any of the above, and that's fine; but I
ask: Where will it get you? Me, I'd rather play in possibilities and continually expand
my options, not to mention daily delights.
If you are interested, read books about Lester Levenson or search in YouTube for his
videos and recordings.
COMMENTS from READERS:

:)
Submitted by AP on April 19, 2011 - 10`07pm
Very encouraging post! :) Lester Levenson's Way makes life much more exciting!
Have you met Mr. Levenson?
Thank you for this article!

-AP
re: Have I met Mr. Levenson?

Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on April 20, 2011 - 2`25am
I'm glad you found the post uplifting. It *is* a fun way to approach life. I never met
Lester, except through stories others have told about him, his autobiography,and
some audio and videotapes. You can go to www.youtube.com and type in Lester
Levenson and a whole series of videos of Lester will come up. You might enjoy that.
Thanks very much for your comment.
hope and possibility

Submitted by rrnorth on June 1, 2011 - 10`28am
I'd love to hear your comments about the difference between "hope" and
"possibility".
Are they compatible? I have heard that using the word "hope" implies despair, and
does not lead to the kind of action and real change that using "possibility" opens up...
thanks
re: the difference between hope and possibility

Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on June 2, 2011 - 8`24am
I've noticed that people mean different things by the words they use, so the most
accurate answer to your question about the difference between hope and possibility
is probably "It depends."
That said, I personally relate more to a "possiblity paradigm" than to a "hope

paradigm." I don't think the word "hope" implies despair; nor does it necessarily lead
to inaction or lack of "real change." But my perception and belief that "anything is
possible" carries a particular energy for me that "hope" does not. It also allows me to
do things that just "having hope" does not.
For me, the word and idea of "possibility" literally opens up a whole range of new
possibilities, not just an outcome or possibility I hope for. When I am in this state of
openness to possibilities, the next step is to actualize a possibility I prefer, which can
be done through neutral, clear intention--if I am in an attention-free state of
awareness. I will write more about how to do this sometime.
To me, this is quite different from hope. The Possibility Paradigm offers a way to
deliberately choose and achieve--with minimal effort and a great deal of ease--
outcomes that I prefer, even outcomes that might appear to be miraculous.
So, in that sense, what you say about hope might apply. Hope seems to be more of
an attitude. "I hope this will happen." "I have hope for the future." I think hope can
lead people to action because usually people don't take action unless they have
some sense that their actions will make a difference, and "hope" carries or conveys
that sense. Yet, to my mind, "hope" does not hold the same power to actualize
possibilities as the word "intention" or "decision." Hope puts the locus of control
outside oneself instead of inside. "Possibility" is more like a field of potential, with
specific possibilities then actualizable by choice and decision.
That's how I experience some of the difference between "hope" and "possibility."
How about you?
reminds me of...
Submitted by Anonymous on July 25, 2011 - 5`49am
A Course In Miracles, written by a psychologist, btw. Wonder if she ever met Lester?
dangerously exaggerates power of positive thinking

Submitted by Stephen Law Ph.D. on September 21, 2011 - 12`32pm
Are you actually suggesting that if we really, really believe we can fly by flapping our
arms, and jump of the roof, then we will fly? Surely this takes the "power of positive
thinking" too far?!
Yes, thinking positively can be a benefit. But it I'm afraid it can't make us fly. Or cure
cancer. Or make us impervious to nuclear explosions.
One danger of this sort of nonsense is that it leads to blaming people for their own
illnesses. If you're ill, it's your own fault! Banish those bad thoughts. You just need to
*think* your way to health.
It's the same old nonsense faith healers and Christian Scientists have been serving
up for decades. Any actual evidence for it all? Other than, say, a load of anecdotes,
like your anecdote about Lester's illness and the robbery?
Agreed - "POPT" sounds like

Submitted by Ken on September 21, 2011 - 4`11pm
Agreed - "POPT" sounds like pseudoscience. Its appeal seems to be analagous to the
supernatural - our experiences would be more interesting if it were true, it would give
us hope, and it cannot be directly disproven.
re: "dangerous" "positive thinking"

Submitted by Dr. Pamela Gerloff on September 21, 2011 - 4`22pm
Your comment reminds me of the Music Man musical: "Oh we've got Trouble, right
here in River City, with a capital T that rhymes with P and it stands for Pool!"
The mind takes something innocent, then goes down a path, step-by-step, and turns
it into something very dangerous!
Thank you for saying what you did. I mean that sincerely--because your comments
are a perfect illustration of what the mind naturally does when confronted with
something beyond its capacity to take in.
You are not alone.
The mind cannot conceive of unlimited possibility--nor can it allow it. To the mind, it
IS dangerous to allow unlimited possibility. The mind rightly knows that if it allowed
for no limitation whatsoever, it would die. That's the death of the ego-mind. The
sense of separation from the whole. When you operate, however, from another level
of awareness, beyond the mind, virtually anything becomes possible.
And so, what you're saying is correct, from the point of view of the mind. I agree that
positive thinking does not "make the impossible possible." But for infinite beingness,
unlimited awareness, consciousness itself, the heart intelligence (as researched by
the HeartMath Institute, for example)--whatever we choose to call this higher and
broader awareness--anything's not only possible, it's easy.
I know that all sounds like gobbledygook to you (you call it "nonsense,") because
you're looking at it from the point of view of the mind.
In order to understand what I'm saying, you have to move to a different level of
awareness. It is possible to access this larger awareness through certain kinds of
processes.
Since I wrote that column, I started experimenting with Lester Levenson's process, as
taught by Larry Crane. (Some of Crane's approach and marketing materials can turn
people off, but underneath it is a simple and direct process that works.)
I've also used some other processes--which in the past I have taught as "the
Querencia Processes"--and they do something similar to Lester's method. They, too,
have made the seemingly impossible happen, time and time again.
There are other processes that can be used as well.
When you move into your own larger awareness, you begin naturally to understand
how anything can be possible--and you begin to experience it.
Until then, the mind will continue to beat you (and me) up if you dare to even ask the
question, "What if it might be possible?"
I would say that imagining another thought framework in which anything might be
possible isn't likely to allow you to fly. However, it can start to quiet your mind enough
to allow awareness to begin to enter. At that point, new things can happen...
I don't expect you to believe or accept any of this. Not at all. What I'm aiming to do is
plant seeds in the collective consciousness, so that those who are willing and able to
consider new--even unlimited--possibilities can join me in playing a new game on
Earth: the What Else Is Possible game.
(The thought-framework that I approach possibilities with is quantum-physics based.

It's able to explain what looks impossible from other scientific frameworks.)
When you start to ask an open-ended question like What else is possible?--and don't
look for an answer with your mind--something wonderful happens. Just ask the
question, to no one at all, and let it be...and see what happens.
By the way, I know a healing practitioner who has made many people's cancers
disappear. You could say it's not possible, but why on Earth would you do that? If a
family member of yours had a cancerous tumor and it showed up on multiple x-rays,
and then it disappeared, why would you say it didn't happen? Why would you try to
convince them it was nonsense? Especially if it happened over and over again with
the same practitioner?
Why not simply open your mind to new possibilities, and allow yourself to entertain a
larger framework that can explain the phenomenon?
By the way #2, if people can levitate--as has been demonstrated--then why
shouldn't they be able to fly?
The mind will clamp shut at that--because it is committed to limitation.

What I'm saying is, What if it's possible? And wouldn't it be fun to find out?
Flying?
Submitted by Mark Jones on September 22, 2011 - 10`27am
By the way #2, if people can levitate--as has been demonstrated--then why
shouldn't they be able to fly?
This is 'men who stare at goats' territory, surely?
I dare say it's fun thinking about what might be possible - surely everyone does? -
but let's not fly before we can levitate.
As for these ideas being harmful, it must be obvious that they *could* be. If everyone
wandered around insensitive to their surroundings like the students in the diner, harm
would soon come to them.
no--not obvious
Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on September 22, 2011 - 11`24am
No, it is not obvious that these ideas *could* be harmful.
The danger of these ideas is only a fiction of the mind.
You wrote: "If everyone wandered around insensitive to their surroundings like the
students in the diner, harm would soon come to them."
When you operate from a larger awareness, you are not more vulnerable to danger,
but less vulnerable.
I'll say to you what I will say to everyone else who has made similar comments about
this article:
Try what it suggests and see for yourself.

Until you've done that, your objections are meaningless.
you might try what the column suggests

And by "try what it [my article] suggests" I mean exactly what I wrote in it:
"...next time you hear something you're tempted to dismiss as "Impossible!" why not
try a Lester on it? Spend some time playfully brainstorming all the ways that explain
how it might possibly, just maybe *could* occur...if your own mind were expanded
enough to let it in."
A physicist friend of mine actually did that--thought of some ways that what Lester
said about not being affected by a nuclear bomb-- *could possibly* be true (though
he argued against my using the Lester example because his scientist friends wouldn't
believe it and would then just dismiss the whole possibility idea that I'm proposing,
just as some on this thread have done). He thought I should make a distinction
between what's probable and what's possible. Yes, it might be possible, but it's
highly improbable.
I appreciate that viewpoint, although from a Possibility Paradigm point of view,

whether something is probable or not is not so relevant. The point is simply to expand
the mind, open to more and more possibilities, and then, from there, take the next
steps into actually creating new possibilities in our external world.
Thanks for the reply Dr

Submitted by Mark Jones on September 22, 2011 - 11`43am
Thanks for the reply Dr Gerloff, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the
piece you said:
Precisely while the robbery was occurring--in the very room in which the students
were sitting--not one of them even noticed it. Nor were they bothered by the
gunman, as the other patrons had been. Lester's possibility-expanding students
found out about the robbery only after the fact, when the police arrived several
minutes later to investigate. (my emphasis)
... but now you say:
When you operate from a larger awareness, you are not more vulnerable to danger,
but less vulnerable.
So you're denying what you said in the piece, and that in fact they *were* aware of
the gunman, but, I don't know, pretending not to be?
Until you've done that, your objections are meaningless.
I like to think I do operate on a level that allows for all sorts of possibilities, but I'll look
more closely at what is suggested and see if I can do better. But perhaps if we don't
see the effects you describe (a larger awareness, rather than myopia!), we could be
doing it wrong? Are there objective tests to confirm these effects, do you know, or
just first person reports?
clarification
Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on September 22, 2011 - 1`20pm
I know that my statement that "When you operate from a larger awareness, you are
not more vulnerable to danger, but less vulnerable" can sound contradictory to what I
wrote in the article. It's not, though.
The reason is a bit complex--too much for this email discussion, so I'll leave it at that.
I stand by the statement that living from awareness is safer than living from the mind.
I'll agree that when you

Submitted by ajollynerd on October 3, 2011 - 12`42pm
I'll agree that when you operate from a "larger awareness", you are less vulnerable.
That is because awareness == paying attention. What the students were doing in the
diner was deliberately NOT paying attention, presuming they were completely
unaware of the robbery until it was well over.
BTW, nice bullet-dodge there. "The reason is… too much for this email discussion".
What your doing is saying "I will make grandiose claims about the nature of reality
and how we can exercise some measure of control over it with positive thinking.
However, it is far too complex an idea to explain to skeptics." I refer to the principle:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Offhandedly mentioning a couple
of anecdotes with no corroborating evidence does not a proof make.
I appreciate what you're trying to achieve here, I just think you might be misleading
the more… credulous… among your readers.
Positive thoughts relating to placebos

Submitted by Derek Theriault on September 13, 2012 - 6`56am
Hi Stephen,
I'm going to agree with your above sentiments, and for the moment dismiss Pamela's
claim that you do not have the ability to "open" your mind (does that imply that she
does? and tangentially, if humans are wired without the ability to open their minds,
why do many sports fans believe their home team will win the championship every
year when they are clearly inferior to other teams? sounds pretty open to me haha).
All pseudoscience aside, there is a fascinting article by Nicholas Humphrey PhD

about the evolutionary psychology of the placebo effect (see link below). We know
that positive thoughts/beliefs--which are the basis for the placebo effect--do have
positive physiological consequences and he explains why this makes sense
evolutionarily. Though positive thoughts, which we could also call placebo, are no
panacea, they certainly can lead to large effects.
The problem with the self-help and new age spiritual movement is that they
exaggerate these effects. There is a catch 22 here: they would have to exaggerate
the expected effects to absolutely convince people that positive thoughts will work in
order for the placebo effect to take place. If they said it only works sometimes and
only to a certain degree, the placebo effect would not work. These ideas introduce a
host of ethical issues.
For example, in group 1 we lie to 100 people and tell them that they will definitely get
better if they think positively, and 20 do get better because of the placebo effect. In
group 2 we tell all 100 people that they may/might get better if they think positively
and 0 get better because there was no placebo effect. Which situation is more
desirable? Clearly, new age thinkers and pseudoscientists would go for group 1, while
scientists would go for group 2. But the new agers and pseudoscientists could then
claim that their group did better in the end! I myself would choose the route of group
2, believing in the importance of truth as I do, but I think the whole issue is interesting
and sticky.
http://cogprints.org/3386/1/GreatExpectations.pdf
Great expectations: the evolutionary psychology of faith-healing and the placebo

effect. In Psychology at the Turn of the Millennium, Vol. 2: Social, Developmental, and
Clinical
Perspectives, ed. Claes von Hofsten & Lars Bäckman, pp. 225-46, Hove: Psychology
Press, 2002
P.S. By the Way #3

By the way, #3:
Lester Levenson was a physicist, then an engineer, then a businessman. He had a

scientific mindset, which is what allowed him to experiment on himself and make his
great discoveries. He didn't go home and resign himself to die when all the
conventional wisdom of science and medicine told him that's what he had to do. He
basically asked, What else is possible?, and then proceeded to find out.
Lester once said, "The impossible immediately becomes possible when you are fully
released on it." ("Fully released" is a specific term used in his method.)Lester
demonstrated the possibility of "the impossible" all the time.
My own approach has been similar to Lester's. Many years ago I didn't think as I do
now. I began to examine new frameworks only when I got sick and found traditional
medical approaches unable to help me. Of necessity, I began to examine and
experiment with other frameworks. Lo and behold, I found some that helped me. Prior
to that, I had wanted to significantly change how we educate children. But when I
finished graduate school, I found that I didn't know how to change the huge and
resistant institution we call "education". At the same time, I was noticing that certain
forms of alternative healing were able to do things that regular medicine couldn't
do--and that their approaches seemed to hold keys to change that usual approaches
to "educational reform" or institutional change couldn't match.
I'm now at the point where I feel I have the tools and the understanding to move
forward in creating something genuinely new and different in the world of education.
We start by asking "What else is possible?"
I'm now connecting with others who are asking the same questions and taking action.
Which would you rather do? Experience new possibilities that you've never
experienced before or live inside a box that insists that what I--and others--are
experiencing is not possible?
Ay, it's the Law of

Submitted by kristen on September 21, 2011 - 10`13pm
Ay, it's the Law of Attraction at work, isn't it? Completely believable to me.
Well, let me know when you

Submitted by Stephen Law Ph.D. on September 22, 2011 - 4`34am
Well, let me know when you are "fully released" and can withstand nuclear blasts with
the power of your mind, Pamela.
Positive thinking can be helpful. And there's certainly nothing wrong with asking
"What else is possible?" In fact, it's often a good idea.
But this questioning approach is being used here as cover for the introduction of a
load of standard New Age, "Law of Attraction" blather packed out with the usual
Deepak-Chopra-type references to quantum mechanics, etc. I'm surprised we didn't
hear "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your
philosophy".
I'm afraid this checks many of the boxes for being an "intellectual black hole". Which
is why I'm annoyed. See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028160.200-a-
field-guide-to-bullshit.html
re: nuclear annoyance

I am not personally fearful of nuclear disaster. However, I see no reason whatsoever
to have nuclear power plants. If we really asked, collectively, What else is possible?
and began to seriously pursue other solutions to our planet's energy requirements,
we'd have no need for nuclear power. That's the point (which you seem to have
missed) of the Anything Is Possible framework. We set aside our old paradigms,
everything we think we know as "truth," "fact," or "necessity," and ask "What else is
possible?" "What if this seemingly outrageous thing could be true?" "What then
would be possible?" We ask all this because it opens our mind to something new--
not because it is "true" or "untrue." This is how great discoveries are made. This is
how new possibilities are born. I approach possibility playfully and joyfully, as is my
style. It's like brainstorming. In a brainstorming process, it is counterproductive for
people in the room to continually raise objections while wild ideas are tossed out. It
closes down possibilities, rather than opens them.
Your annoyance I think comes from your misunderstanding of the nature of the
Possibility Game. You think it's arguing about what is true or untrue. You think it's
about planting or preventing dangerous falsehoods in the minds of impressionable
readers. (Where is your evidence that anything I have said has caused someone to
jump off a building and die? Can you show me some real-life evidence that any
demonstrable, provable harm has actually ensued from this column?)
The Lester example in the article was playfully offered to suggest an approach we
could all productively take, which is:
When something seems patently untrue to us, don't automatically close our minds to
it.
Instead, try playing with it. Try asking questions: What if this could possibly true?
How might it be true? What might that suggest to help solve this problem I'm
addressing?
These ideas are meant to open and expand our minds.

I, for one, want to see huge change on this planet in my lifetime.
For that, we need a whole lot of possibility-minded people. As Dr. Dain Heer said,
"Closed minded people don't change the world."
I want to change the world.
Goodness me. You do talk a

Submitted by Peter JS on October 3, 2011 - 2`11am
Goodness me. You do talk a load of nonsense, don't you?
Imagination may be limitless, but not sure reality is...

Submitted by Adzcliff on September 22, 2011 - 5`35am
This is quite something. I'm pretty sure it's damaging to suggest that imaginations
alone can render the hitherto impossible, possible. I think either more data's required
to show how private thoughts can protect against nuclear explosions, or more
explanation's needed as to why believing this fantasy is advantageous to the believer.
Whilst I admire the spirit of the likes of Voyager test-pilot Dick Rutan in his playful
rejection of the laws of physics - "Never look at limitations as something you comply
with. Never. Only look at it as an opportunity for greatness." (in An Optimist's Guide
to the Future, 2011) - I'm not sure it's only his subconscious doubt that's impeding his
ambition to travel faster than the speed of light. Positive thinking's fine, but
fantastical thinking will always present problems when it rubs up against reality.
Anyway...
Possibility Pamela: "In

Submitted by Michael Fisher on September 22, 2011 - 6`20am
Possibility Pamela: "In recent years scientific and metaphysical frameworks have
emerged that provide plausible explanations for how such seemingly unbelievable
things might occur--to be saved, of course, for another post" ~ I will keep an eye
open for that post, but I do not expect that you will be able to deliver anything except
the usual Chopra woo
If you want to believe that mere wishes will materialise in the physical world, then
good luck to you ~ it's your life. But, anyone toting around an "Ed.D" & who has
earned the right to a "Dr." in their name should not push this stuff so carelessly ~
some poor fool may listen to you & try to walk off a roof or stop medicating their
mental illness. If you have a new insight that breaks from the accepted laws of
physics (you were not clear), then get it peer reviewed ~ otherwise bear in mind that
you could cause harm in the real world to real fragile people.
Measure your words & provide evidence
"In essence, they gave their

Submitted by Dave on September 22, 2011 - 7`04am
"In essence, they gave their left-brain, logical mind ..."
Modern neuroscience disavows the pop psychology, phrenology based hemispherical

differences of that sort. Yay for brain scans.
re: left brain

You are correct that the emerging view in neuroscience is that there is no "right-
brain, left-brain" distinction of that sort. Most people, though, hold it as a concept in
their awareness, so I wrote it that way. It would have probably been better to just say
"logical mind" -- or perhaps even "mind" or "ego-mind." I stand corrected on that.
But don't make the mistake that a neuroscience view is automatically "correct."
That's part of my point. People take current views in science--and medicine and
education and politics and economics and religion and nearly everything else--as
"truth." Consensus views are not truth. They are emerging viewpoints. The views of
science are changing all the time. ALL THE TIME. Somewhere in school, kids learn to
stop questioning and exploring. They turn into fundamentalist scientists (or
fundamentalist economists or fundamentalist educators, etc), similar to
fundamentalist religionists.
I say, "What if we could widen the limits of our minds?" Ooooohhhhhh, that's
DANGEROUS!, shout some of the commenters on this site.
How absurd is THAT?
Who's shouting?
Thanks for this Dr Gerloff.
It's interesting that you feel shouted at and have chosen to caricature the discussion.
I'm all for the accumulation and refinement of knowledge - even the odd paradigm
shift - but only as a data driven process. If you have no data, then you only have
hypotheses; so when taking the discussion of expanding minds to a territory that
violates the known laws of physics, then it is only appropriate that these views aren't
nodded through uncritically surely?? If you were describing cognitive exercises for
self-belief in everyday life challenges (e.g. job interviews, educational pursuits, feats
of physical endurance, recovery from physical or emotional problems), then I'm sure
the responses would have been different, but it was you who brought up the minds
potential against nuclear blasts at point blank range.
And just for the record, I'm quite happy to accept that time and space are inter-
related, a quantum particle can be in two places at once, eating a little bit of a
disease can give you immunity against that disease, everything we see is in the past,
I share an ancestor with llamas and daffodils, and there's no noise in nature without
hearing devices. So it's not like I'm naturally close-minded to the instinctively
implausible?
Not sure what you think?
re: shouting
Perhaps another word would have been preferable to "shout."
"Shriek," maybe?
"Squeal," maybe?
"Seriously intone," maybe?
"Fearfully utter," maybe?
I wasn't characterizing the discussion, just attempting to convey how that "It's
dangerous" formulation that a number of commenters have used comes across to
me.
How silly is it that a playful column on possibility, citing something that seems totally
unbelievable and implausible, is projected forward to be a VERY DANGEROUS column
because vulnerable readers are likely to immediately stop taking their meds and flap
their wings and jump off buildings and...maybe hop on a plane over to Japan to soak
up some nuclear fallout?
I'm trying to respond to all comments, but may not get to all of them for awhile. I'll be
back.
Thanks to you and everybody else for posting.
Re. Shouting
Thanks again Dr Gerloff
Though it is only you that's shouting 'DANGEROUS', and now 'VERY DANGEROUS'.
I'm also not sure where people suggested your column has led to anyone stopping
their meds, jumping of buildings or deliberately soaking up nuclear radiation (??);
though I have seen it implied that this kind of thinking is certainly conducive to those
sort of acts. It's essentially saying don't trust reality and conventional wisdom,
entertain and pursue other possibilities - regardless of the counter-evidence - and
call doubters absurd or close-minded. If your column was playful, then I feel this
should have been made clear so that readers could separate the metaphor from the
magic.
I should also add that I work with adults with learning disabilities where unadulterated
empowerment and wild wishful thinking like this has had real negative consequences.
(E.g. telling a 40 year old person with limited language and no reading or writing
abilities, and their carers, that no one has the right to tell them they can't be a Police
Officer, ...and the rejections keep coming)
You may also have come across neuroscientist David Eagleman's engaging angle on
possibility - perhaps there's something in there for you: http://www.eagleman.com/
eagleman-blog/93-poptech2010
Anyway, thanks for you time.
"think" yourself well.

Submitted by Stephen Law on September 22, 2011 - 9`00am
Hello Pamela
You say: "I say, "What if we could widen the limits of our minds?" Ooooohhhhhh,
that's DANGEROUS!, shout some of the commenters on this site. How aburd is
THAT?"
You are attacking a straw man. No one has suggested we shouldn't open ourselves
up to new ideas, consider new possibilities. No one has claimed that it is dangerous
to do so.
However, some of us have suggested it might be dangerous to encourage people to

think that they can just "think" themselves better. Particularly when you've supplied
no evidence whatsoever to support that claim (a claim also made by Christian
Science, etc. etc) other than testamonials and other anecdotes (also offered in
bucket loads by Christian Science, etc. etc.).
In the case of Christian Science, the idea that we can "think" ourselves well has
undoubtedly killed many children. See e.g. http://www.masskids.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=165
re: Christian Science

Hi Stephen,
The link you provided above offers 14 anecdotes about Christian Science from the
1970s'through the 1980s, plus some other similar anecdotes from other faith
denominations or healing systems--making a total of 28 anecdotal cases during the
1970s and '80s.
I am not a Christian Scientist, but I've seriously investigated their method of healing. I
would think that the many many thousands of deaths per year (48,000 - 100,000 in
the U.S.? Numbers vary, depending on the statistics gathered) resulting from
infections acquired from improper hospital practices--one study put the numbers at
more than the number of deaths per year from HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, and auto
accidents combined -- would be more of a danger to the populace than the small
number of deaths associated with ineffective Christian Science treatment and my
column on Possibility, combined.
Similarly for the number of deaths, cases of brain damage, long-term disability, and
unnecessarily difficult recovery from surgery resulting from the fact that hospitals
won't use brain monitors instead of heart monitors when they administer anesthesia.
Brain monitors cost about $20 a patient. Why don't hospitals use them? See the work
of Dr. Barry Friedberg.
As you know, I am not suggesting that people can just "think" themselves better. Nor
do I buy your assertion that my column presents any real and present danger to the
health and well being of the citizens of the world.
But I appreciate your concern--and I don't mean that snidely. I actually do appreciate
you and your comments. I recognize that you are expressing your wish to keep
everyone safe and on the right track. You hold a certain viewpoint and a certain
approach to getting at what's true. I don't share your viewpoint, but I see that you are
sincere. As are the other commenters on this site.
Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.
gin gout
Submitted by Michael Fisher on September 22, 2011 - 9`35am
[PK QUOTE: I say, "What if we could widen the limits of our minds?" Ooooohhhhhh,
that's DANGEROUS!, shout some of the commenters on this site. How absurd is
THAT?]
That isn't all you are saying Pamela ~ you are talking about new physics that includes
the mind performing what most people would consider to be miracles. I would love it
to be true, but until your new science can be demonstrated to be fact-based it is
irresponsible of you to suggest people make important decisions based on... fine
words & no substance
Produce your evidence & please stop misrepresenting the statements of the people
who are calling you out on your drivel
question
Michael,
What kind of "important decisions" do you think I am suggesting people make?
I've noticed that a number of people on this thread are misrepresenting the
statements I made in my column.
-Pamela
the straw-man strikes again-

Submitted by Michael Young on September 22, 2011 - 10`07am
I say, "What if we could widen the limits of our minds?" Ooooohhhhhh, that's
DANGEROUS!, shout some of the commenters on this site.
Except you actually said a bit more than that. You suggested that we could, with the
power of our minds alone, survive nuclear explosions occuring next to us, cure all
manner of illness, and fix a broken tv set. I don't think anyone is disputing that
positive thinking and mind-expansion can have some good effects. The dispute is
whether it can have quite the incredible effects you claim, and the challenge is to
provide more than unconfirmable anecdotal evidence that it can. There is, after all,
apparently serious evidence for the contrary hypothesis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/opinion/25sloan.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
But if you actually mean to walk back your claims to the rather banal "Positive
thinking can sometimes help a little bit," maybe it is better just to say so explicitly?
One could otherwise get the idea that you mean to proudly stake your place in a long
line of frauds, bull-crap artists, and purveyors of nonsense.
I fixed a broken TV set with the power of my mind, and so can you!
Submitted by Roberto Alsina on September 29, 2011 - 10`09pm
Here's how it works: take a broken TV set, that is not all *that* broken. Then, add
some basic knowledge about electricity, a tiny bit of electronics.
Then, *using your mind*, open the TV, and notice an exploded capacitor. Replace it
*using your mind* with a new one.
Please make sure to have your mind move your hands carefully, and be mindful about
electrical discharges.
that's one way

That's one way to fix a TV set.
See my post to Paolo re: options.
You're not quite correct

What you say is not correct.
I did not say that with the power of your mind alone you can survive a nuclear
explosion, cure all manner of illness, and fix a broken TV set.
In order for that to happen, you have to be in a very different state of awareness than
almost everyone on the planet currently is.
Lester was able to do those things. He cured himself of all manner of illnesses. He
fixed broken TV sets and radios.
But it wasn't with his mind.
He was able to do it because, after much self-effort, he entered into a different type
and level of awareness in which the old rules operative in "normal" everyday reality no
longer apply.
This is the key element--and I see I will need to write more about this sometime.
Anything becomes possible *when you move into a different level of awareness,
where the old rules no longer apply*. Until you're there, everything you are saying is
"true." From the point of view of the limited, conditioned mind and your version of
current science, the things Lester did are "impossible."
That's exactly the point.
What I am suggesting in the article is that we can use the power of our minds to
gradually expand the limitations of our minds--instead of automatically shutting them
down when we hear something that sounds outrageous to the limited mind. What you
and some others on this thread are doing is exactly contrary to the approach that
Lester's students took to understand what Lester was actually saying. Lester's
approach, when confronted with certain (or nearly certain) death, got him to a whole
new level of functioning in the world--a level unimaginable to the limited mind. Both
his approach and those early students' of his, was completely opposite to the
approach I am inviting you to try.
I am suggesting that by not automatically shutting down your openness to

"outrageous possibility," you can begin to expand your mind enough to start to be
able to entertain new possibilities; maybe even, eventually, you'll be open enough to
just try what Lester himself did. He subsequently systemized his approach, in
response to student requests, to make his own attainment accessible to anyone
willing to "take it for checking," i.e., try it out and see if it works. (Lester is no longer
alive, but you can access his method through ReleaseTechnique.com. As I said
elsewhere, some of the marketing there can turn people off, but the system itself is
brilliant and elegant. )
What Lester did is not possible for you, and it will likely never be, until you become
willing to step beyond current consensus beliefs. You can start by doing what the
article suggests: Instead of automatically closing your mind (demanding "evidence,"
"proof,"; challenging the content as if it were some sort of scientific document
intended to prove something), simply relax and say "Hmmm. What if it *might* be
possible?" And then see what happens from there.
I read a statement recently that said most people don't want to be different from
others and so they don't want to change.
That seems plausible to me; and it helps explain why people are so often afraid to
believe something that isn't yet part of the current collective belief system, as well as
why some people are so hung up on "proof" and "evidence." Pioneers in anything
*never* have proof or evidence. They *are* the proof. They create the proof. They
establish the evidence. Eventually, those who at first vilified them for their
"nonsense" thinking, are compelled to change their own beliefs.
So, from my perspective, it's up to those of us who are bold enough to actually
explore the possibility of changing ourselves, our beliefs, and the world to lead the
way. Once enough people are doing that, the rest will join in--because they want to
be like everybody else.
You can be like everybody else and believe that Big Pharma's and Institutional
Medicine's and certain standard scientific views of health and disease are "the right
and true ones," and that people will never ever fly, and that there are severe
limitations on what is possible,
but I'm not going there--because it doesn't serve the purpose I am seeking, and
because I've seen and experienced something different.
My aim is to change the world.
For that to happen, we need a large group of people who are willing to step beyond
the current thinking and try something else.
Try it and see? I went to

Try it and see? I went to ReleaseTechnique.com. Just the first CD costs $279.
Perhaps you would like to try my blancmange facepacks that produce a

transcendental insight into the nature of the cosmos. By coincidence they also cost
$279. Don't shut your mind down to "outrageous possibility" Try it and see.
Thanks for all of your posts

Submitted by Zachary Bass on September 23, 2011 - 1`17am
Thanks for all of your posts Dr. Law. I've just been reading some of your work in
addition to these entertaining posts, I'm irritated too. As an amateur philosopher, I
think your work does apply to people's lives. Do you think some people are better off
believing in these kind of fairy tales?
Albert Einstein
Please see my comment about Albert Einstein further on in this thread.
Thanks Zach. As a rule, no we

Thanks Zach. As a rule, no we are not better off believing this stuff. However, I
wouldn't tell someone on their death bed there's no afterlife. That would be pointless
and cruel.
re: CDs
The CD set you're talking about gives you the entire basic technique. It includes
unlimited free coaching forever and a money-back guarantee. Not exactly a face-
pack.
I'm not promoting it, just letting people know that if they want what Lester had, they
can try it out.
As he said, "Take it for checking."
Hi Pamela Incidentally the

Hi Pamela
Incidentally the idea that the reason I won't seriously entertain the suggestion that
people can fix TVs and withstand nuclear explosions with power of their minds (not
without some good, non-anecdotal evidence) is that I'm frightened of such ideas is
both insulting and false.
During my 20s I was very attracted to such ideas. I tried many out. I dowsed. I tried
levitation techniques. I dabbled in magical stuff. I still find such beliefs exhilarating
and exciting and wish some were true.
In fact contemplating outrageous ideas and questioning what ordinarily gets taken for
granted is part of my job - I'm a philosopher.
Unfortunately, I came to realize people almost certainly can't do these kinds of thing
with their minds. About the same time I realized that a certain well-known spoon
bender is just a very successful illusionist and businessman.
collaboration?
Well, Stephen, maybe you and I should collaborate!
I'm sorry if I insulted you. (Really.) I do understand that you can be bold and brave
and still hold the views that you do. (I find you do have a tendency to speak in
supercilious words, though--all those pronouncements about "nonsense" and such--
but my posts sometimes sound that way, too. Could be an artifact of email-type
discussions.)
I totally agree with you that most people can't do these kinds of things with their
minds. But I've become convinced that human capacity is far beyond what we tend to
believe it is--but only if we transcend the mind.
We're not going to have the kind of "evidence" and "proof" that you require for a very
long time. (I know there have to be people like you on the planet, to provide a balance
to people like me, but I think we should join together, not argue with each other, or
force one another to defend our points of view. What would it take for that to
happen?)
In order to get the kind of evidence and proof you're looking for, a whole bunch of us
are going to have go out on a limb and explore what a friend of mine calls "the wacko
frontier"--with an attitude of "Well, hey, so what if it's hard to believe--what if it's
possible?" Like you, I've explored a lot of things. Some seem to work, some don't.
What I'm excited about now is I think there are tools available now that can make
higher levels of human functioning relatively easy for a lot of people to attain.
Now, maybe everyone isn't going to go around fixing TV sets simply through their
intention, but they can become able to choose their emotions, not be victims of
them; they can learn to create more effectively in this reality; they can start
contributing to the planet in ways that change how our basic institutional systems
operate--like healthcare, education, war...
I suspect you would agree with that.
So why don't we find common ground, and go from there?
P.S. This Just In

I hope this doesn't annoy you too much, Stephen:
CERN: Light Speed May Have Been Exceeded By Sub-atomic Particle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/cern-light-speed_n_977014.html
"If the European findings are correct, "this would change the idea of how the universe
is put together," Columbia's Greene said."
Maybe you'd better let them know that their claims are dangerous nonsense. Why,
somebody might start to think they can fly...really really fast!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
:)
Hi again Pamela. I too heard

Hi again Pamela.
I too heard this on the radio this morning and immediately thought of this thread.
However, I'm yet to read/hear that these CERN scientists made their preliminary
findings through thought alone - in other words, I'm pretty confident they didn't think
this particle into existence and/or propel it with their minds? Anyway...
Adzcliff
misunderstanding
Again, you and others on this comment thread are misunderstanding what I wrote in
the article. I never said anything at all about "positive thinking" (which Stephen and
others have denounced as "nonsense"), nor have I said anything about thinking
particles into existence or propelling them with your mind.
I have suggested that it is fruitful to play with beliefs. To see how expanded we can
make our own belief systems, and then to watch what can happen then.
I am realizing from this discussion that you and Stephen and some others here
probably don't have a framework in your heads that can make what I am suggesting
understandable to you. Playing with beliefs is different from positive thinking.
Quieting the mind so that it stops censoring what is actually possible is different from
"thinking something into existence."
Thank you very much for your comments because I hadn't realized before that this is
the sticking point, and needs to be more fully explained to people who don't already
have this understanding in their mental framework.
Ah, $279. I see.

Submitted by Tony Lloyd on September 22, 2011 - 3`19pm
I was drawn to this page by a tweet from Stephen Law saying he was "very irritated"
by it.
My first thought was that Stephen should chill out. There are an awful lot of woo
merchants out there and, as Stephen actively seeks them out, he'd pretty soon go
mad if he allowed his anger to rise.
Then I saw the $279.
This looks just like a Brain Gym/Scientology/whatever scheme to part fools (those
who aren't "hung up on "proof" and "evidence"", who are "open minded" and
"courageous" enough to hand over their money for the magic beans) from their
money.
It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
BTW This is the second time I've come across "Psychology Today", the last time was
when they printed some pseudo-scientific garbage titled: “Why Are Black Women
Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”.
I think there's a publication that needs to tighten its editorial standards.
How do you earn money?

Hey Tony--
Do you earn money?
If so, how?
Do you believe it's OK for people to be paid for their efforts?
I see that you don't know anything about Lester's Release Technique and yet you
pronounce it akin to something else you've come across and apparently didn't like.
That's just the kind of immediately- snap-shut mindset the article is inviting you to
shift.
You can check out the research on the method. (See my comment below, entitled
"Also." You can find a research summary on the Release Technique website.)
I shift my paradigm to make it possible

Submitted by Tony Lloyd on September 23, 2011 - 5`31am
I see that you don't know anything about Lester's Release Technique
You see nothing of the sort, I know plenty about the Lester Release Technique and
the research into it. Enough to know that it is a self-help tool that, whilst (possibly)
very effective, is ludicrously over-sold to achieve a $279 price tag. (Richard
Wiseman's book 59 Seconds which also has effective self-help techniques will set
you back around $10).
There is a website, there are videos on Youtube, there is your article here and your
comments. There is Google Scholar. All of this I looked at before writing my post.
You, however, immediately dismiss any possibility that I know what Iʼm writing about.
This is the “immediately- snap-shut mindset”. You did the same thing with Stephen.
Whether or not you intended to insult him did you not immediately assume that he
was closed minded and prejudiced simply because he disagreed with you?
In all this desire to embrace possibility you do not appear to embrace the possibility
that you are wrong, that disagreeing with you is not a sign of close-minded prejudice,
that people do not have to submit to your bald assertions, that much of what you
wrote was obviously incorrect and (often) maked no sense.
(Asking of my profession is an example of utter nonsense. That there are bad ways to
make money in no precludes acceptable or, even, good ways to make money. Who
would ever think such a thing?)
re: knowing about Lester's technique
Tony,
You cannot know about Lester's technique unless you have actually tried it. It was/is
apparent from your post that you have not tried it.
Lester's method includes a couple of ingenius things that I have not seen anywhere
else. To charge $10 for a method that includes some of the most brilliant insights
ever arrived at would be to significantly under-sell it, unless someone had specific
reasons for doing that.
I never assumed that Stephen was closed-minded and prejudiced. I saw in his
comments the nature of the mind. The mind labels and judges ("nonsense"), it makes
statements that are points of view and presents them as truth ("I'm afraid positive
thinking can't make us fly. Or cure cancer..." Maybe yes, maybe no, but we don't
know. Either yes or no is a viewpoint.) The mind sees danger around every corner.
And it thinks that "scientific evidence" should automatically carry more weight than
"anecdotes." etc.
All of that is fine. It's what the mind does. It's what my mind does too. Everybody's
mind does this. That's the nature of the mind. I responded to Stephen and others
because I wanted to help clarify what my article actually said, and what I actually
believe. I don't think these kinds of discussions are generally fruitful, because they
are mostly discussions between and among minds, and minds aren't generally
changed by such types of discussions or debates. This particular discussion has
been useful for me primarily because it has illuminated certain features and
characteristics of the mind, and it has helped me clarify my own thinking.
You have a point of view. I have a point of view. Some people, such as Stephen, seem
to find my point of view irritating and annoying. The mind will not generally say to
itself "I wonder why I find a different viewpoint from my own so annoying?" Nor will it
recognize that the reasons it gives for finding another point of view annoying (e.g.,
"it's dangerous," "it's unscientific," "it has no proof") are generally just justifications.
From my point of view, there is never any "objective" reason for a point of view to
evoke annoyance or irritation. The annoyance and irritation come from the mind. That
is the mind's nature. It wants to be right and it wants to control the expression of
points of view that are different from its own. When it perceives that it is hampered in
doing that, it gets annoyed. (That's my point of view on that. You may have a different
one.)
Early this morning, as I was contemplating this discussion, it occurred to me that

Albert Einstein would have probably liked my column. See my comment below on
that, if you're interested.
Thank you again for contributing your point of view to this discussion. I've enjoyed
and benefited from your thoughts.
I haven't actually tried herion either
Submitted by Tony Lloyd on September 23, 2011 - 11`53am
“You cannot know about Lester's technique unless you have actually tried it.”
I know plenty of things without having, personally, put them to the test (and paid
$279 for the privilege!) I havenʼt tried jumping from Alan Sokalʼs window. You havenʼt
tried Stephenʼs blancmange facepacks. Of course you claim to know that Stephenʼs
blancmange facepacks are bogus. And you do know that. Just as you know that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth (despite being born millions of years after that
time), that neutrinos going faster than the speed of light is a BIG THING (despite not
being a physicist) and the centre of the earth is quite hot (despite never having been
there).
Personal experience is not the sole source of knowledge and your relativist mask of
epistemological liberty slips with:
“You cannot know about Lester's technique unless you have actually tried it.”
You donʼt get to dictate conditions for knowledge or exempt your pet propositions
from scrutiny.
“You have a point of view. I have a point of view”
Your not really advancing a point of view though, are you? Or you start advancing a
point of view and then retreat from it progressively as its nature becomes apparent.
There are the snide asides, misrepresentations of others and epistemological
authoritarianism (see above) as you are dragged away from your precious and, no
doubt, lucrative fantasy. But dragged away you are, your last reply to Stephen Law
not only disavows any factual basis in your original post but disavows facts, reality
and objective truth per se!
knowing
Hi Tony,
You are right that I did miss-speak when I said, "You cannot know about Lester's
technique unless you have actually tried it."
More accurate would be to say, "From my point of view, you cannot *know* [as
opposed to *know about*] Lester's technique unless you have actually tried it" (and
even then, it might take some time to really know it).
As you noted, there are different kinds of knowing. From within one ways-of-knowing
framework, it is accurate to say that you can know *about* Lester's method, but you
cannot *know* it truly unless you see precisely what it is and actually experience it.
You say, "You don't get to dictate conditions for knowledge," yet that is precisely
what you and Stephen and some others who have posted here have tried to do. The
discussion arose because we have different criteria for what are acceptable or
required or useful ways of knowing. So-called objective, repeatable, and verifiable
evidence provides one type of knowing. Direct personal experience provides another.
I tend to give more weight to direct personal experience.
So my viewpoint is that you cannot know Lester's method enough to know whether or
not it is worth the purchase price until you have tried it out--and even then, your
knowing would apply only to you. It might be worth the purchase price to someone
else.
A point of note: From within my epistomelogical framework, I don't actually know that
dinosaurs lived. I've never seen them. Science advances a lot of ideas that later turn
out to be untrue. To believe that dinosaurs lived I have to accept certain standards of
knowing. Probably no one alive today knows for sure that they lived because it's all
based on other people's observations and logical deductions based on externally
observable data. Not on personal experience. For the purpose of living and
functioning in this reality, I accept the collective belief that dinosaurs lived. If science
came up with some "astonishing discovery" that dinosaurs never actually lived on
Earth, that would neither surprise nor upset me. It would probably amuse me.
I know that neutrinos going faster than the speed of light is a BIG THING, as you
say--*to certain scientists within the reality they have constructed.* It is not a BIG
THING to me. It doesn't surprise me as it might some others--because I live in an
Anything Is Possible universe. From my point of view, it's largely a matter of time until
most currently accepted scientific views are turned on their head.
What I'm saying is: We all decide the kind of data that we will use to navigate through
life. My ways of knowing work very well for me. If yours work for you, I say that's
great. But *I* don't need to be bound by the ways of knowing that are acceptable to
you or Stephen. Which is why I have responded to all these emails.
I do place a high value on my right and liberty to know what I know, to believe what I
believe, and to invite others to experiment with me in expanding the limitations of my
mind.
Thank you again for posting. I appreciate your interest and your comments.
Re. knowing
Submitted by adzcliff on September 23, 2011 - 1`53pm
Hi again Pamela
"It doesn't surprise me as it might some others--because I live in an Anything Is

Possible universe. From my point of view, it's largely a matter of time until most
currently accepted scientific
views are turned on their head."
And it is assumed, it doesn't surprise you because you're in no different a position to

the one you were in last night: last night a particle could both travel faster, slower and
equivalent to the speed of light, and this morning - in an anything is possible universe
- this remains the same. And when current scientific views are turned on their head,
they're also immutable - anything is possible. So in many ways you agree that the
scientific method is the best path to knowledge - and not, granted - but also that
direct experience is fatally flawed and the most untrustworthy basis on which to base
understanding, as well as being the best. I think I'm both getting it and not, but now
have to contemplate that you also mean the exact opposite of what you say, as well
as infinite related/unrelated possibilities in between. This whole discussion means
both nothing and everything, as infinite possibilties also encompasses impossibility...
zen koan
You know what I love about your response, Adzcliff?
Besides it being funny and clever and elegant, which I appreciate,
it strikes me as playful.
Children learn much of what they know by playing. I've observed that very often,
once we enter into play, interaction naturally produces learning. So it strikes me that,
at this point, we could perhaps begin to have a playful, and genuinely fruitful
conversation, if we chose.
And I dare say, by Jove, I think you're getting it!

It's sort of a Zen koan kind of thing.
:)
-Pamela
Re. zen kaon

Submitted by adzcliff on September 23, 2011 - 3`33pm
Thanks for this Pamela.
You're right, it is playful - which for me, implies that it's not to be taken seriously. For
the more serious stuff, I find I have to carefully ground my contemplations in the
realms of potential (i.e. known) possibility for risk of descending into the paralysis
and/or chaos of total solipsism. I think this is the very same reason that the CERN
scientists are so deeply skepical of their own findings, and are very reluctant to
admit, yet, that they've violated the known laws of physics. It seems to me, ijn their
position, you might be quicker to trust your personal experience, and chalk this one
up as a factual anecdote on which to illustrate the flexibility/fragility of the 'laws' of
nature?
That all said, I'm very impressed with the time and effort you've put into this
discussion thread - even if I'm yet to be convinced. Oh, and a little treat on the open-
mindedness of science:
"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory
attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they
may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how
deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." (Carl Sagan)
Play
Thanks a lot for your comments, Adzcliff.
I'll respond to a couple of things.
re: "playful--which for me, implies that it's not to be taken seriously."
Yes. Play is light, and suggests, "Don't take this seriously."
My view (you won't be surprised, I'd guess) is that nothing is to be taken too seriously
[except, of course, that everything is! :)]. There is a little poem by Catherine of
Sienna, who lived in Italy in the 1300s. She wrote:
"If you cried in heaven

everyone would laugh.
For they would know you were
just kidding."
I absolutely love that poem.

It expresses the essence of a knowing that cannot be perceived, measured, or known
through the kind of science that measures the speed of neutrinos. Measuring the
speed of neutrinos is fun and meaningful for scientists. It's their game. Playing it
brings them joy. It is the context in which they express, explore, and delight in
discovery. Artists, athletes, brick layers, teachers, farmers, poets, ministers...each of
us plays our game of life from within our particular context. The Dalai Lama once said
that if he weren't the Dalai Lama he would be a photographer.
We play in the context we're in.
So if I were a scientist, I would play the science game. I would measure the neutrinos.
And I might just go for the whole shebang: act shocked at what this implies, get into a
tizzy about how, if this actually is true--and I would be careful not to say that it *is*
true because it could just be measurement error and other scientists will definitely
have to verify this--it now means that we have to revise everything we previously
thought about how the universe works and is put together! Oh. My. God. This is a
discovery of huge proportion! (because it *is*, within the context of the game).
Not being a scientist, but being fond of scientists, I instead chuckle at the play of the
game. Doesn't it amuse you that the tiniest of tiny measurements--only 60 billionths
of a second faster than the speed of light--could cause the bulk of the world's
scientists to have to rethink their entire reality?
I have no problem with scientists or the scientific method. Where I step in to

challenge the discussion is when scientists require everyone to play the science
game when others are speaking from and playing in a different context. The exact
same rules of the science game don't apply in the exact same way in the possibility
game--or in the game of dance or art or spirituality or teaching children or caring for
elderly parents. Science may have something to offer each of those areas, but the
rules of each game are different, and unique to each game. Stephen Law's insistence
that the possibility game conform to the rules of play that operate in his science/
philosophy game is like insisting that soccer players follow the rules of baseball--and
if they don't they are playing a nonsense game.
If you got all in a tizzy about a neutrino discovery in heaven,

everyone would laugh.
For they would know you were just kidding.
:)
From my viewpoint, we are all living in heaven; however, most of us, most of the time,
don't perceive it.
We are infinite beings disguised--from others and ourselves-- joyfully playing a game
of limitation. No matter what is going on, we are always having a wonderful time.
(For a fun extrapolation on this basic concept--that will probably blow your mind
circuits--you could read Robert Sheinfeld's book Busting Loose from the Money
Game.)
Once you have the experiential insight/awareness I just described, in a powerful way,
you can't go back to taking the limitation game very seriously. And you're certainly
not going to get all lathered up because of any absence of "scientific proof" that your
experiential insight is "real" -- especially when what you know and perceive from your
own awareness turns daily life into a joyful game, whatever the surface appearance.
My personal quest (game) has been to find tools and approaches that can help us all
move into this kind of experiential awareness, and then see what new possibilities we
can create together in this game of life.
Thank you, sincerely, for your part in this game.
P.S. -- Prerequisite Reading?

P.S.
It occurs to me that some of the contributors to this comment thread probably never
read my first two posts in the Possibility Paradigm. I first posted those and their
follow-up, "You Mean Anything Is Possible?", in April. The latter, to which people on
this thread are responding, got picked up recently somewhere online as a standalone
piece; lots of people are reading it now for the first time.
My first post in the Possibility Paradigm--Why Possibility Matters, with the tag line:
The Possibility Paradigm releases a hidden power within us--talked about why
possibility matters--why it's an important value to me and why it's worthy of others
considering making it a value for them too. It specifically states that I'm not just
talking about mental gymnastics.
Here's the link:
Why Possibility Matters
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-possibility-paradigm/201104/why-
possibility-matters
The second post--The Possibility Principles, with the tag line: What if the principles
are useful, even if you don't believe they're true?--laid out the two basic principles of
the Possibility Paradigm. It was essentially laying out the rules of the possibility game.
The Possibility Principles

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-possibility-paradigm/201104/the-
possibility-principles-0
In that column I discussed how changing the metaphors we use can help solve real-
world problems. I suggested that a useful approach to solving problems is to keep
changing your paradigm--your thinking-framework--until you find a framework from
which the thing you want to do or understand makes it possible.
I referred to a couple of examples that demonstrated this process: one that helped
solve the problem of urban blight, another that resulted in the design of a superior
paintbrush.
The Lester example in my third column--You Mean Anything Is Possible?, with the tag
line: How to radically expand beyond the limits of your mind--took the idea further,
into the realm of the seemingly far-out. My intention was to suggest that the game
can get as big as we want to play it--and why not play it big?
Some of the commenters on this site I don't think have understood this context. (Not
that they necessarily would even if they had read those first two columns, but the
odds might have been greater.)
My point: If we're going to play the possibility game--to which I am committed,

because I value it and it's incredibly fun--why not play it to the hilt?
You don't play a game to the hilt by spending your time criticizing the game rules or
their logic or denouncing it as "nonsense."
The Possibility Paradigm is a *game*. You play the game or you don't. If you like it,
you'll probably keep playing, and you might find some friends to play it with you. If
you don't like it, you stop. What you *don't* do is make everybody stop playing the
game because it follows different rules from your game.
Maybe all of the above will help clarify the context?
Kuhn Schmuhn
Submitted by Tony Lloyd on September 23, 2011 - 5`00pm
Hi Tony,
You are right that I did miss-speak when I said, "You cannot know about Lester's
technique unless you have actually tried it."
More accurate would be to say, "From my point of view, you cannot *know* [as
opposed to *know about*] Lester's technique unless you have actually tried it"
And my assertion required that I *know about* this technique. Which I do. The
assertion stands together with the (adverse) ethical judgement.
As you noted, there are different kinds of knowing. From within one ways-of-knowing
framework, it is accurate to say that you can know *about* Lester's method, but you
cannot *know* it truly unless you see precisely what it is and actually experience it.
Nice slide there. There are different kinds of "knowing". A dog knows its master, I
know that London is in England etc. This does not equate to different ways-of-
knowing, which entails that knowledge is an activity. What you have is different ways-
of-finding-out, knowledge is the state when you have found out (think ways-of-
ascending-Everest, of which there are many and being-on-top-of-Everest, of which
numbering is not-even-wrong).
Now, a severe problem with "ways-of-knowing" (letʼs call it a “paradigm”, because itʼs
shorter) is that they are taken to be both necessary and sufficient conditions for
knowledge. As "knowledge" is usually taken to entail truth a paradigm is, thus, taken
to entail truth. With that a denial of the truth of an assertion is held to be the denial of
the paradigm. Conversely, as a paradigm is held to be necessary for truth a critique
of the paradigm is a critique of the assertion. Of course, the paradigm to truth is the
argument from authority (the authority of the paradigm) and the negation of the
paradigm to falsity is the genetic fallacy.
You say, "You don't get to dictate conditions for knowledge," yet that is precisely
what you and Stephen and some others who have posted here have tried to do. The
discussion arose because we have different criteria for what are acceptable or
required or useful ways of knowing.
Here you make an error, equating criticism of the hypotheses you put forward as
criticisms of your method of formulating the hypotheses. It matters not, though, how
you came by these ideas. I donʼt care and neither does (or should) anyone else.
Thatʼs what Einstein is driving at. Prior to the 20th Century (and to some extent in the
early decades of the 20th Century) a key aim of philosophy, science and the
philosophy of science was to find a paradigm that would develop true hypotheses.
(You know, Bacon, Mill, Whewell etc.) In the 20th Century many (Einstein, Popper and
Hempel spring to mind) came to the realisation that there is no methodology for
creating hypotheses: hypotheses are created by the imagination, they are dreamt up
(literally in the case of the structure of benzene). To limit the production of
hypotheses or the nature of hypotheses is fatal to progress.
But, that the paradigm of hypothesis creation is “think something up” (or, in the case
of the quantum physicists “take vast quantities of drugs and hallucinate something”)
does not mean that hypotheses so formulated are right. This is your other error,
which flows all through your article, the idea that by changing the hypotheses
formulated you thereby change the world.
Limiting the production of hypotheses is not limiting the acceptance of hypotheses
and vice versa
The hypothesis that you have come up with is obvious junk. That is not a matter for
approbation. You come up with ideas, you should come up with ideas. Most of them
will be junk, some (if you come up with enough ideas) will be good. A very very few
may even be very very good indeed.
What is a matter for approbation is:

1. refusal to accept that ideas are junk when then so prove to be. (And, especially,
charging $279 for it!)
2. refusal to accept that others should criticise those ideas
3. seeking to place limitations on the formulation of ideas by others.
A different game for you?

Hi again, Tony.
Thanks for your latest comments.
Please see my replies to Adzclif entitled "Play" and "P.S.-Prerequisite Reading?"
Some of what I wrote in my comments there also address your comments.
I do want to say that I understand your thoughts about pricing of products. It's OK
with me if you think Lester's method is overpriced. That doesn't mean it is necessarily
"junk." To say or imply that is faulty logic.
I also want to make it clear that I am not selling or being paid for that product, and the
Release Technique method does *not* contain my ideas. [This is re: your comment
"refusal to accept that ideas are junk when then so prove to be. (And especially,
charging $279 for it!)]
The method was developed by Lester Levenson (who is no longer alive), in response
to the many requests from others who wanted to know how Lester had gotten so
peaceful, happy, and healthy, and how they could do that too.
I have lately been trying out the method in an effort to see how well it works. For me,
it is fulfilling its promises. Moreover, it has enabled me to clear up a longstanding
challenge I've had in my life--which I had not been able to resolve through other
approaches--with surprising ease.
You don't seem to enjoy the possibility game as I've laid out its rules. You would
probably do better to stick with another game. I like the possibility game; in fact, I
love it. So I'll continue to play the games I love, and you can continue to play the
games that you love. How's that?
From "within" the "paradigm"

Submitted by Tony Lloyd on October 2, 2011 - 2`03pm
(Scare quotes as I think talking of being "within" a paradigm is a gross abuse of the
concept of a paradigm)
A chap called Jules has posted on Stephen Law's personal blog (http://
stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/bullshit-alert.html) a link to comments about the
Release Technique by someone who followed it. (http://lawrence-crane-
enterprises.pissedconsumer.com/the-release-technique-
avoid-20090731151634.html)
It's interesting and not wholly critical:
"It is apparently working for some people,. And some of the events I experienced
were unforgettable as I listed above|. I have also gained a great measure of emotional
control that genuinely helps me in many areas of life;"
You know that there's a "but" coming, don't you?
"But all in all, it does NOT deliver on what it promises in the financial or happiness
realm"
The reviewer even uses the, heavily nuanced, word "cult".
As I've said, "cult" would be too strong a word. It's not so much a cult as the
technique is deceptively presented as a magic bullet to end all problems without
taking any action. If Scientology were the most nefarious cult with a 10 on the 1-10
scale, then releasing would be probably about a 2. But that 2 can be a 10 to the most
trusting (or gullible, if you will). That is what makes it deadly in the long term. It locks
you in with promises of a blissful existence, but doesn't create enough immediate and
consistent pain for you to want to leave it. When you are releasing, you are convinced
you are creating your reality and mastership is just a matter of "letting go", that the
abundance is right around the corner, even with plenty of evidence to the contrary
staring you straight in the face.
The comments are interesting, especially this part of the third:
"I also spent thousands of dollars learning the RT, and like most of you, I did not
benefit as promised. I think that the reason most people do not complain, is because
they convince you that if you do not get the results promised is because you are not
doing it correctly, or you are just not committed enough. In other words it is a win-win
situation for Larry and his minions"
This is very like Pamela's "paradigm" strategy. If we accept it then Pamela has a win-
win. "Try it." If you like it, then that's great. If you don't then it's not because there's
anything wrong with the ideas put forward it's because there's something wrong with
you.
And these are not just some silly ideas. They want you money, thousands of dollars.
re: testimonials
Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on October 2, 2011 - 7`30pm
I'm going to reply to Tony's comment. Not because I think anything I say will make
any difference to Tony, Stephen, Edward, or others who follow them (I don't), but
because there are people who may be reading this comment thread who might care
to hear my viewpoint.
A Word about Anecdotal Evidence

I'm noticing that for people who don't accept anecdotal evidence as sufficient to
"prove" something--while simultaneously asserting that proof is required when one
makes a statement--the naysayers on this thread use anecdotal evidence to back up
or "prove" their viewpoints. For example, Stephen Law's posts about Christian
Science, which cite as support for his viewpoint a small number of anecdotes, and
Tony Lloyd's use of a couple of testimonials (all of which contain comments that are
both positive and negative, not exclusively negative).
Lester's Method
That said, when I mentioned the RT on this thread, I made the explicit comment that
some of its marketing material turns people off. I said that I had recently been
experimenting with the technique and have personally found it beneficial. I also said
that, in fact, the method has a couple of key features that I find brilliant and elegant,
which I haven't seen in other techniques. Even the "negative" posts on the website
Tony cites have acknowledged that the method *has* worked for them, at least in
some measure, though not always to the degree they were led to believe it would.
Others have found that it has worked as they were promised it would.
I also said that just because there is a particular price tag on a method doesn't
automatically mean the method itself doesn't work (as Tony's "logic" concludes).
I don't argue with anyone's comments on that website; their experience is their
experience. I have simply said that there is a brilliance to Lester's method and you
can't a priori judge the effectiveness of it based on any of the marketing of that
method.
As some commenters have noted, the Sedona Method also claims to present Lester's
method. I haven't tried that so don't know how it compares, which is why I didn't ever
mention it. As I said before, I am not pushing a method. I merely mentioned the
method Lester used successfully for himself--because people started asking about
it--which is now available through Larry Crane, for those who might be interested in
checking into it. Apparently, something similar is available through the Sedona
Method.
Other Material about Lester

You can find material about Lester and some talks and writings by him for free on the
Internet, which I also mentioned in one of my earliest comments. I haven't personally
come across free material that presents the method completely (though perhaps
such exists). I noted for some commenters the basic course, which I did purchase,
because I'm not sure if someone unfamiliar with the basic technique would be able to
do what Lester did from the free materials only.
The Alleged "Secrecy"
Shortly after I wrote my "You Mean Anything Is Possible?" article, I sat down to write a
follow-up piece in which I intended to present the basics of Lester's method.
However, I found it difficult to do adequately in such a short space. So I decided to
save it for a longer piece in a different context. I haven't done that yet because I've
wanted try out the method more thoroughly and talk to other people about their
experiences before I write that. This Tony derides as "secrecy," in at least a couple of
his comments discussing this piece. (It seems to have caused a sensation on the
Internet!)
Intention
Tony and some others have apparently concluded that I'm an idiotic fraud and part of
some elaborate scheme to bilk people out of their money and profit lucratively from
it. I don't make any money on this at all. My interest is only in inviting people to move
beyond the automatic clamping-shut of the mind that happens when they come
across something that the mind will naturally tend to judge as "impossible."
Some of the people on this thread are not particularly interested in exploring how to
keep the mind from clamping shut. That's clear. They are interested in discrediting
and debunking only.
Danger to Society
I understand that some of those people consider me a danger to society. That is
apparently the purpose of their strenuous efforts. So far, I have not seen any
evidence that my playfully presented column has caused any harm to vulnerable or
simple-minded readers. I've seen only conjecture by a few alarmed commenters,
which, by their own standards of admissible evidence, is hardly sufficient "proof". My
own view is that most readers are sophisticated enough to understand the point and
intention of the article.
follow-up
Submitted by Michael Young on September 22, 2011 - 4`00pm
"I did not say that with the power of your mind alone you can survive a nuclear
explosion, cure all manner of illness, and fix a broken TV set. In order for that to
happen, you have to be in a very different state of awareness than almost everyone
on the planet currently is. Lester was able to do those things."
Fine. Read "we could" in my post for "one could, under some possible conditions." My
point still stands: you are making rather incredible claims that, taken at face value,
locate you firmly in a long line of nonsense-purveyors, and it is for this that you are
criticized. To make these claims is to do considerably more than to ask innocently
"what if we could widen the limits of our minds?," or to suggest that positive thinking
might help sometimes, or to say that imagination is generally a good thing, or some
such banality. Your evident victim mentality notwithstanding, nobody is actually
attacking you for advancing claims of those sorts.
Also
The Release Technique has actually been reasonably well-researched, by researchers
at SUNY, Harvard, Columbia, and more. They've mainly looked at the things that
standard science has figured out how to research, like stress reduction, improved job
performance, etc.
This discussion has gotten sidetracked by the focus on the Lester anecdote. The
larger point is that much more is possible than we imagine. As we start to allow it into
our experience, the world can change around us. That's the goal of possibility
thinking--greater ease and joy in our lives, and a nicer world to live in.
Thanks, everyone, for your contributions to this discussion.
«...next time you hear

Submitted by Paulo Lopes on September 22, 2011 - 8`14pm
«...next time you hear something you're tempted to dismiss as "Impossible!" why not
try a Lester on it? Spend some time playfully brainstorming all the ways that explain
how it might possibly, just maybe could occur...if your own mind were expanded
enough to let it in.»
I daresay it's a question of practice; as a famous queen once stated, long before
Lester's insightful teachings, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast."
Also I was not greatly surprised to learn that people can levitate - "as has been
demonstrated"! -: Mr Vertigo (in the homonymous book by Paul Auster) could do just
that.
Well, I know it's fiction; but, in the light of what was put forth in the article, does it
really matters (specially if one doesn't mind)?
Exactly
That's the perfect quote:
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Thanks for noting it.

That's exactly the point of the article.
Pamela you say: "The Release

Submitted by Stephen Law Ph.D. on September 23, 2011 - 4`05am
Pamela you say: "The Release Technique has actually been reasonably well-
researched, by researchers at SUNY, Harvard, Columbia, and more. They've mainly
looked at the things that standard science has figured out how to research."
Can you point me at some publications reporting results?

In fact, science is well-placed to determine whether certain people can fix TVs,
levitate, etc., with the power of their minds (or expanded consciousnesses, or
whatever). It's pretty easy to test these things. Not much to figure out. In fact many
such investigations have been done.
You refer to the news today about possible faster-than-light particle. Yes that nicely
illustrates how scientists are very willing to consider and even accept highly
unorthodox claims... in response to some *actual evidence*.
Not just a bunch of anecdotes and appeals to personal, subjective experience.

Anecdotes about people levitating, curing cancer, or fixing TVs with their power of
their minds etc. are ten a penny, are (given what we know about human psychology)
entirely predictable whether or not such effects are real, have been scientifically
investigated many times, and guess what...
So your claim that these effects are definitely real, based as it is on anecdotes and
personal experience, is just not credible at this point. It's those claims we are
criticising, not your injunction to brainstorm and think outside the box (with which I've
no problem).
re: research, plus

Stephen,
1. You can contact the researchers directly. Some of their names are included on the
Release Technique website.
2. In reply to some of the rest of what you said, please see my comment above,
entitled "Misunderstanding."
3. re: your statement: "So your claim that these effects are definitely real"
I don't think I've ever said these things are "definitely real." I haven't said it because I
don't hold a concept of "definitely real." So again, as I said to Adzcliff, I am realizing
that you don't have the same conceptual framework in your head that I do--and
that's likely where our misunderstandings are coming from.
For me, it is easy to hold a concept about something as "possible/maybe possible/

maybe not possible" in my head all at once. I don't think in terms of "real/not real"
and certainly not in terms of "definitely real." That's not a useful way for me to divide
up the world. In my worldview, *nothing* is "definitely real." Everything I experience in
the external world is of my own interpretation and construction. Everything in life is
subjective. (Even scientists have noticed that the observer influences whether a
subatomic entity appears as a wave or a particle, so this part should not really seem
so strange.)
When I look at the world I get to see the contents of my mind outpictured. A kind of
holographic-psychological projection. You probably won't understand this because,
as I said, this is not part of your mental framework. I don't think I can explain it
succinctly at this moment to someone who doesn't already have this in his lexicon--
it's like an aboriginal native explaining to Western-world researchers a concept that
does not exist in the researchers' language and culture. It simply does not translate.
So this is where the communication glitch is. From my point of view, and in my
ongoing experience of life, I do not make the kind of judgments, decisions, and
conclusions that you do about what is "objectively real" and what is not. When I say
"anything is possible" I mean that in my operative framework of reality, I find it useful
to approach the world *as if* anything is possible. It is possible/potentially not
possible all at once.
Whether or not the Lester anecdote is "objectively true" or not by your framework's
standards of evidence is irrelevant to me--and completely irrelevant to the points I
was making in the article.
Many other people have read this article and understood it. The person who quoted
from Alice in Wonderland--saying "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast"--got it exactly right. You and some others seem
to believe that "fiction" should remain separate from "fact" and never the twain shall
meet--unless a bunch of scientists conduct a bunch of certain kinds of experiments
and amass a certain kind of "evidence" and "proof" that the fiction is, in reality, fact. I
cannot tell you how irrelevant your kind of evidence and proof seems to me for what I
am talking about. It is useful to you to enable you to do certain kinds of things. It is
not useful for me for what I am attempting to do, and for what I am talking about in
this column.
I am saying that it is great fun and *extremely fruitful* to approach the world in an
Alice-in-Wonderland kind of way and "believe six impossible things before breakfast"
--and then see where it takes us.
Your response is to call this dangerous nonsense. From your point of view, of course,
it is. But from a Possibility Paradigm point of view, "nonsense" is not dangerous,
unless you make it so.
Please see my final comment re: Albert Einstein.
Thanks again, for your contributions to the discussion.

I've found this illuminating.
Imagining Albert Einstein

This morning, as I was contemplating this discussion thread, it occurred to me that
Albert Einstein would have probably liked my column, including the Lester anecdotes.
Now, we don't know for sure, of course, and I don't have any "hard evidence" for this
hypothesis, but what I know about Einstein suggests to me that it is likely.
Einstein famously said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I can only
believe that he meant that. And from what I know of his scientific and investigative
process, he regularly mixed his imagination in with his more scientifically-based
observations. He didn't keep "fantasy" and "fact" separate as he attempted to
understand the world. His "thought experiments"--which began as kind of wild "What
would happen if?/What if it works like this?/What if this were possible?"
speculations--are significantly responsible for the leaps he made in scientific
understanding.
I think that if Einstein were alive today, his response to my "You Mean Anything Is
Possible?" column would be to go "Hmmmm. That's interesting. I wonder if that
*could* be possible. How might Lester's experiences and assertions be explained, if
indeed they were possible?"
If my physicist friend responded in that way and set to work to come up with some
hypothetical explanations, surely Einstein would have done the same, methinks.
I don't think Einstein would have launched into an argument about whether Lester's
experience and assertions were true or not, whether there was any hard scientific
evidence behind them or not; nor would he likely have suggested that it was
dangerous to write what I wrote in my article, lest vulnerable readers be harmed.
I think the great genius Albert Einstein would have responded to my invitation to play
in possibility--
because he played in possibility all the time.
So if I really think more

Submitted by High School Math Teacher on September 24, 2011 - 9`34am
So if I really think more positively and optimistically about the achievement of my
students, then they will all get A's. Wow, bring on that Performance Based Pay scale!
Disclaimer: Scarcasm is wonderful.
To High School Math Teacher

Please read my other comments on this discussion thread as reply.
This is not "positive thinking" or "optimism." The Possibility Paradigm is a game of
playing in possibility...
However, you might want to read the classic educational studies by Robert Rosenthal,
which demonstrated (in this reality bubble, by traditional scientific investigative
methods) that what you are scoffing at actually does occur in classrooms. Rosenthal
studied what he called "self-fulfilling prophecies" and "the Pygmalion Effect"--how
teachers' expectations affect student performance.
One of the findings that I found most interesting about the studies--and this finding
is seldom cited--is that when students who were not expected to do well
academically actually did exceed expectations, the teachers were angry at them for
it.
As I've noted elsewhere on this thread, the mind likes to believe that it is right and if it
thinks its rightness is being challenged, it tends to display anger or annoyance. That's
the nature of the mind.
Hi Pamela, >>He was able to

Submitted by Edward Ockham on September 24, 2011 - 9`42am
Hi Pamela,
>>He was able to do it because, after much self-effort, he entered into a different
type and level of awareness in which the old rules operative in "normal" everyday
reality no longer apply.
There are two things you could be saying here. (1) You can enter a state of awareness
in which certain things become true 'for you', but not true for anyone else. Indeed,
not true at all. I.e. you change only, not reality. Or (2) the awareness actually involves
reality itself changing. Such as certain laws of Physics becoming false. I.e. reality
itself changes.
I expect you may reply that there is no such thing as reality, but I am happy to define
what I mean by reality, if you ask.
Edward Ockham
re: reality
Hi Edward,
Yes, it is a little awkward to discuss "reality," since it probably means something
different to you than it does to me. But, from my viewpoint that "external reality"
comprises what is typically a shared, "consensus reality," we're probably close
enough to each other's viewpoints to discuss it with some degree of understanding
of each other's perspectives. From my viewpoint, the distinction between "internal"
and "external" reality doesn't really exist or is over-emphasized. My operating view
and personal experience is that external reality reflects internal reality, both individual
and collective.
That said, I think you've stated my basic viewpoint correctly:

You wrote: ""There are two things you could be saying here. (1) You can enter a state
of awareness in which certain things become true 'for you', but not true for anyone
else. Indeed, not true at all. I.e. you change only, not reality. Or (2) the awareness
actually involves reality itself changing. Such as certain laws of Physics becoming
false. I.e. reality itself changes."
My observations and experience suggest that both can be the case.

I'm happy to hear what you mean by "reality," if you'd care to share it.
Please also read my posts to Adzclif entitled "Play" and "P.S.-Prerequisite Reading?" I
think it's important to understand the context of this column. The Possibility
Paradigm is basically a game, a way of playing with possibility. It's a "What If?"
domain, where everything is allowed to be approached as "*What if* this were true?
What if this were actually possible?" "What might happen then? What might I, or we,
be able to see differently, experience, or change then?" It's the kind of game I think
Albert Einstein played all the time: applying his imagination in ways that produced
new insights within the math/science arena he simultaneously played in.
The possibility game is a very different game from the game that most people
typically play, which is, "Nooooo, that *can't* be possible." "Noooo, that isn't true,
because science hasn't proven it yet or has already proven the opposite."
In the Possibility Paradigm, the accepted rules of the empirical science tradition of
knowledge or investigation don't strictly apply. Personally, as I let go of the operative
rules that apply in other games in life (like the science game or the governance game
or the sports game, for example), I begin to expand into a different kind or level of
awareness. As that happens, I'm able to come up with new approaches and solutions
to problems, new frameworks for understanding situations and "reality," and many
new things that were not possible before become possible. Others have experienced
this too.
My column invites you and other readers to play within this paradigm too, if you
choose. It's totally fine with me if readers don't choose to play it. But to denounce the
game itself because it's not the science game seems to me to serve no useful
purpose, except to create a potentially illuminating and/or interesting or entertaining
discussion--which is fine enough purpose in itself, I am realizing, and that's one
reason why, as I've said before, I'm playing this particular discussion game--though I
may stop soon since I have some other games waiting to be played. :)
Some other reasons I'm playing the discussion game are that I genuinely appreciate
people's comments--even the "that's nonsense! purveyors--because they provide
feedback and different perspectives to contemplate; engaging in this way gives me a
sense of direct connection with readers; and my engagement in the discussion is a
way for me to honor the good intention of readers to share their perspectives and
contribute to whatever it is we are creating together here in the Possibility Paradigm.
So again, I thank everyone for sharing their (your) views.
>>From my point of view, and

Submitted by Edward Ockham on September 24, 2011 - 2`49pm
>>From my point of view, and in my ongoing experience of life, I do not make the kind
of judgments, decisions, and conclusions that you do about what is "objectively real"
and what is not. When I say "anything is possible" I mean that in my operative
framework of reality, I find it useful to approach the world *as if* anything is possible.
It is possible/potentially not possible all at once.
we could not even disagree with each other unless there were 'objective reality'. You
may disagree with everything I say here. But that is because you think that I am
saying something false. And if you thing I am saying something false, you think I am
saying something that does not correspond with reality.
Not exactly
Hi Edward,
Thanks very much for your comments.
My reply is this:
Yes and no.
Yes, I say some things are "true," as I did in the article. But I suspect it's not exactly
what you or the other writer mean by "true"--which is why I said "I do not make the
kind of judgments, decisions, and conclusions that you do about what is 'objectively
real' and what is not."
For purposes of my own personal exploration, and conversation and engagement

with others, I accept as "true" that someone named Lester Levenson lived on planet
Earth and that he had the experiences I described in the article. I am always aware
that I cannot know for sure that that is true--I never met Lester myself, I never saw his
birth certificate (and even if I had, it could have been faked), etc. I've see videos of
Lester on YouTube. I've listened to audios of him speaking. I've read some of his
books. I know people who knew him. Everything could be an elaborate hoax or
delusion, but I accept that Lester "actually existed" in this reality (to the extent that
any of us actually exist in this reality) and the experiences he reported having were
real to him and are "real" to the students who knew him. That's why I say "this is true"
when I talk about Lester. In the game we are here now playing together, I accept and
act as if this is true.
I also accept and act as if "it is true" that dinosaurs once lived on the planet. I don't
know that for sure. Scientists claim it's true, but they could be wrong, or it could be a
very, very elaborate hoax or collective delusion. It doesn't matter to me in the
Possibility Game. In order to play in consensus reality with other people on the planet,
I accept and *act as if* certain things are true. If they turn out "not to be true"--like
scientists' ideas of the speed of neutrino travel, that's fine with me. I'll go along with
the new version of "truth," even though I have no idea how fast neutrinos "really"
travel.
To me, everything we experience as "real" is as easily classified as "illusion"--an

appearance reality that I live in and engage in as if it is real. This allows so-called
external reality to be changeable in ways that another thought paradigm does not
allow for. You probably treat what I call "illusory reality" as "genuinely real" (though
perhaps you don't). That, I think, might be the difference in our perspectives.
One of the ideas of the Possibility Paradigm is that whatever thought framework you
are using tends to either increase or decrease the probability of certain things
occurring within your own experience, in a way that you can perceive it. Something
might occur right in your experience, but if your thought framework says it is
impossible, you are not likely to perceive it--or if you do, you'll dismiss it as "not true,"
and then won't experience it again.
If you want to have certain experiences in your life, you can try changing your thought
framework until you come up with one that allows you to have those kinds of
experiences.
Like the people in my earlier column who were able to design a new paintbrush by
changing the metaphors they were using to think about the problem. Until they
thought differently, they were not able to create a new kind of paintbrush experience
for themselves or others. Like people who are able to have experiences beyond the
bounds of scientifically measurable "reality," because they don't automatically
eliminate it from their experience by declaring it impossible.
What is real? What is true? Because I like to play in possibilities, I allow the answer to
those questions to be very fluid and malleable.
I will add
I will add that to play the Possibility Game in the Possibility Paradigm, you don't
actually need to adopt "the strong form" of the paradigm principles. You can play a
"weaker" version of the game, if that's more in your comfort level. What I've been
describing in my comments on this post are what might be called "advanced levels"
of the game. It took me a long time of playing with possibility to get to the level I am
playing at now. I recognize that most people are not going to jump from their current
version of the Impossibility Game (which is what a lot of people are currently playing)
immediately into the advanced versions of the Possibility Game.
I've found, though, that sometimes it is helpful to shock the mind out of its routine
ways of thinking. Bold assertions sometimes do that, for some people, more
effectively than weaker assertions that nobody would ever think to argue with.
Possibility
Submitted by Joan on September 24, 2011 - 5`31pm
Hi Pamela, I appreciate your courage in opening the discussion of 'possibility'. Most
of us are aware that the early discouragement of imagination as not useful, in favor of
the norm which will help us to have successful encounters with the realities of life is
the present day truth. Many of us are also aware that conditioning is a powerful form
of control. Societies, beginning with families, cultures, religions, governments and
educational institutions, require us to think, feel, speak and see the truth as it has
been established by these institutions. I admit that life experiences often give us
some leeway with the established norm. However, even the leeway operates whithin
the confines of the norm of conditioned thinking. By now we are convinced that we
live in danger and limitatons, which possibilities are too vast for a column, but
certainly represented in this blog. And since the mind is a creative instument (don't
confuse this with imagination) it has no problem drumming up dangerous encounters
with the world, which I propose have previously been installed in it's computer banks.
Science and academia want proof and time tested results. I feel that asking the 'what
if' question would give the mind a better occupation of focus even though it will not
be able to figure out anything new. For the new, we need imagination. In fact, our
most brilliant scientists have relied on imagination. Einstein, for one has said, (not a
quote), imagination is everything. So, what if?
And maybe we could add laughter?

Thanks for your comment, Joan.
And maybe to imagination we could add laughter?
I just re-posted my earlier post on laughing like a 5-year-old, because it fits in the
current PT topic section on laughing.
Are You Meeting Your Laugh Quota? Why You Should Laugh Like a 5-Year-Old
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-possibility-paradigm/201109/are-you-
meeting-your-laugh-quota-why-you-should-laugh-5-year-ol
It seems to me that some of the comments on this thread are taking the Possibility
Paradigm *Very Seriously,* which is kind of missing the point.
Maybe we could up our laugh quota here? :)
laughter
Submitted by Joan on September 25, 2011 - 7`57pm
Hi Pamela, reading your Laugh Quota article just upped my laugh quota - I figure I
added at least 25 points - maybe I'll watch the comedy channel tonight or the
political pundits, then again I think I'll have more success watching the stories my
mind tells me - that should be good for another 100 points - by all means let's add
laughter to imagination - Joan
re: laughter
You go, Girl!
(LOL--and another 25 points!)
Thanks for the uplift.
:)
>> Yes, it is a little

>> Yes, it is a little awkward to discuss "reality," since it probably means something
different to you than it does to me.
My whole point was a view of reality that we could both agree on. Reality is what
makes a true statement true. Without some concept of truth, there is no way that we
could communicate. Indeed, it would be impossible for us even to disagree about
something, if not. If your reality is something that belongs to you alone, and private to
you alone, and similarly for me, how could we communicate anything at all? The
whole point of language is to communicate ideas and thoughts that I have, to another
person, which we do by assigning relatively fixed ideas to the same words.
>>from my viewpoint that "external reality" comprises what is typically a shared,

"consensus reality,"
This is a muddle. Before Galileo, no one believed that Venus had phases, so the
consensus did not fit the reality. Consensus is nothing to do with reality. It is possible
that something is believed false by everyone, i.e. the consensus is that it is false,
even though it is true.
>> From my viewpoint, the distinction between "internal" and "external" reality
doesn't really exist or is over-emphasized.
This is a muddle too. There is an obvious distinction between what someone *thinks*
is the case, and what *actually* is the case. The statement ‘John thinks that snow is
blackʼ may be true. But ‘Snow is blackʼ is false.
>> You wrote: ""There are two things you could be saying here. (1) You can enter a
state of awareness in which certain things become true 'for you', but not true for
anyone else. Indeed, not true at all. I.e. you change only, not reality. Or (2) the
awareness actually involves reality itself changing. Such as certain laws of Physics
becoming false. I.e. reality itself changes." My observations and experience suggest
that both can be the case.
Both cannot be the case. The first view is that reality does not change, although you
change. The second view is that both change. Both of these cannot be true (because
that is a truth of logic).
>> I'm happy to hear what you mean by "reality," if you'd care to share it.
Reality is that which is the case. It is what makes a true proposition true, and a false
proposition false. “Snow is white” is true because snow being white is a reality.
“Snow is black” is false because snow not being black is a reality. Or really “it is true
that p” is just another way of saying “it is a reality, or a fact, that p”.
>> Please also read my posts to Adzclif entitled "Play" and "P.S.-Prerequisite
Reading?" I think it's important to understand the context of this column. The
Possibility Paradigm is basically a game, a way of playing with possibility. It's a "What
If?" domain, where everything is allowed to be approached as "*What if* this were
true? What if this were actually possible?"
The logicians of the middle ages were familiar with this game, which we now call a
‘thought experimentʼ. But you seem to making the fallacy of moving from statements
about the possible to statements about the actual. You cannot move from ‘it is
possible that pʼ to ‘it is the case that pʼ. That is an invalid inference.
>> It's the kind of game I think Albert Einstein played all the time: applying his
imagination in ways that produced new insights within the math/science arena he
simultaneously played in.
Yes but his musings about what was possible were confirmed by observations such
as the Michelson-Morley experiment. If I think ‘possibly pʼ and then make an
appropriate observation that p, then that is perfectly valid. But you have given no
observations or evidence to support your claims that people can withstand the power
of a nuclear explosion by the power of thought or awareness. What you call the
‘scientific viewʼ is not a view at all but the principle that we believe nothing until
proved by logic or observation or both.
>> The possibility game is a very different game from the game that most people
typically play, which is, "Nooooo, that *can't* be possible." "Noooo, that isn't true,
because science hasn't proven it yet or has already proven the opposite."
To your first example ("Nooooo, that *can't* be possible."), it depends the reason for
the person thinking that p is not possible. To your second, the inference “science has
not proved that p therefore p” is clearly invalid. But the inference “Science has
proved that not-p, therefore not-p” is perfectly valid. Why are you saying it is not
valid? Itʼs implicit in the meaning of the verb ‘provedʼ.
>> In the Possibility Paradigm, the accepted rules of the empirical science tradition of
knowledge or investigation don't strictly apply.
How exactly donʼt they apply? What exactly do you mean by the “empirical science
tradition of knowledge”?
>> Personally, as I let go of the operative rules that apply in other games in life (like
the science game or the governance game or the sports game, for example), I begin
to expand into a different kind or level of awareness. As that happens, I'm able to
come up with new approaches and solutions to problems, new frameworks for
understanding situations and "reality," and many new things that were not possible
before become possible. Others have experienced this too.
What you describe is the essence of the scientific method: questioning the truth of
statements which previously had been accepted by mere unreflective intuition, or
authority.
>> But to denounce the game itself because it's not the science game
I think you are very confused about what the scientific method is.
>>Some other reasons I'm playing the discussion game are that I genuinely
appreciate people's comments--even the "that's nonsense! purveyors--because they
provide feedback and different perspectives to contemplate
Some of what you are saying is not very clear, or confused. I am not saying it is
nonsense.
>>Some other reasons I'm playing the discussion game are that I genuinely
appreciate people's comments--even the "that's nonsense! purveyors--because they
provide feedback and different perspectives to contemplate
>>But I suspect it's not exactly what you or the other writer mean by "true"
So when you say it is true that Lester fixed TVs by the power of thought or
awareness, you mean by the word ‘trueʼ something different from its commonly
accepted meaning? How is this different from lying, then?
>>For purposes of my own personal exploration, and conversation and engagement

with others, I accept as "true" that someone named Lester Levenson lived on planet
Earth and that he had the experiences I described in the article. I am always aware
that I cannot know for sure that that is true […]
Iʼll skip the next few comments because you are making a confusion very common to
beginners in philosophy, namely between the question of what ‘truthʼ actually is (and
as I explained above, the answer to this is really very simple), and the question of how
we can be sure of or certain of the truth. The first question is logical, the second is
‘epistemologicalʼ. You need to get this distinction clear in your mind, or our discussion
will be fruitless.
>>Everything could be an elaborate hoax or delusion, but I accept that Lester

"actually existed" in this reality (to the extent that any of us actually exist in this
reality) and the experiences he reported having were real to him and are "real" to the
students who knew him. That's why I say "this is true" when I talk about Lester. In the
game we are here now playing together, I accept and act as if this is true.
So when you say ‘it is true that pʼ you actually mean ‘I accept and act as if p were the
caseʼ. As I commented above, how is this different from lying? Are you lying then? (By
lying, I mean making a statement you know to be false, for the purpose of deceiving
others).
>>I also accept and act as if "it is true" that dinosaurs once lived on the planet. I don't
know that for sure. Scientists claim it's true, but they could be wrong, or it could be a
very, very elaborate hoax or collective delusion. It doesn't matter to me in the
Possibility Game. In order to play in consensus reality with other people on the planet,
I accept and *act as if* certain things are true. If they turn out "not to be true"--like
scientists' ideas of the speed of neutrino travel, that's fine with me. I'll go along with
the new version of "truth," even though I have no idea how fast neutrinos "really"
travel.
Iʼm not sure what you mean here. Do you ‘act as ifʼ certain things are true, or do you
*believe* they are true? These are different. Actors and liars act as if certain things
are true, without believing them. Are you an actor or a liar?
>>To me, everything we experience as "real" is as easily classified as "illusion"--an

appearance reality that I live in and engage in as if it is real.
This makes no sense to me. Iʼm not saying it is nonsense, only that it makes no sense
at all. What is an ‘appearance realityʼ?
>>You probably treat what I call "illusory reality" as "genuinely real" (though perhaps
you don't).
I donʼt understand what you mean by this.
>>Something might occur right in your experience, but if your thought framework
says it is impossible, you are not likely to perceive it--or if you do, you'll dismiss it as
"not true," and then won't experience it again.
This sometimes happens, yes. But what are you trying to prove here? You seem to be
making a move from “it is possible that you are mistaken”, which is nearly always true
to “you are mistaken”. That may be true as well, but it doesnʼt make the inference
valid. We logicians say that an inference is only valid when the antecedent cannot be
true and the consequent false. But it “it is possible that you are mistaken” can be true
and “you are mistaken” can be false, so it is not valid.
>>What is real? What is true? Because I like to play in possibilities, I allow the answer
to those questions to be very fluid and malleable.
As I said before, how is this different from lying? It is very dangerous to play around
with the meanings of words like ‘trueʼ and ‘realʼ, for the reasons I mentioned above. It
turns out that when you say things like “it is true that p” you really mean “I am acting
as though p” or “I am imagining that p” or “in my model of reality it is p”. People are
liable to get confused.
you can't understand the Possibility Paradigm from outside the paradigm
Submitted by Dr. Pamela Gerloff on September 26, 2011 - 1`45pm
Hi Edward,
Thanks again for your comments.
Here is the thing: You can't understand the Possibility Paradigm from outside the
paradigm itself, which is what you are trying to do. You are trying to understand what
I'm saying from within your philosopher/logician's thought framework/paradigm.
That's exactly the opposite of what I am advocating--and what I advocated in my
column on the Possibility Principles. Principle #2 is to keep shifting paradigms until
you find one that allows you to understand or experience the thing you're trying to
understand or experience.
The paint brush designers could not create a new design for a paintbrush as long as
they were operating from within their former paradigms (operative metaphors/
thinking frameworks).
This is why the scientists, philosophers, and logicians on this thread can't understand
what I'm saying.
From within your paradigm it appears to be gobbledlygook, and full of logical
inconsistences. That's correct, when perceived from within your paradigm.
Peter Elbow years ago wrote a wonderful book called Writing Without Teachers. In it,
he presented a way to "teach students writing" without actually teaching them
anything about writing--it was a method he devised which, when followed, enabled
people to greatly improve their writing. His observation was that teachers typically
"taught writing" but very little writing improvement occurred in students, when
approached with the usual methods. He also discussed two different ways of
approaching knowledge and ideas. (This I am saying from memory and I read it a very
long time ago, so it might not be exactly right in detail. But the gist of it made a big
impression on me.) One way to approach something new is to dissect it, take it apart,
look for inconsistencies, be on the alert for anything that might be unproven about it
or wrong (the usual way of scientists, academics, and philosophers). A very different
way is to, instead, try it out, *act as if* it is true, and get to know it from the inside, so
to speak. Then assess it from there.
What you're doing is the former. What I'm saying in the Possibility Paradigm is that if,
instead, we make a practice of doing the latter, it can lead to something quite
different from what we might otherwise be accustomed to. It can potentially open up
new possibilities, big and small, practical and theoretical.
So, in order to play the Possibility Game, you need to enter into the Possibility
Paradigm. You need to temporarily suspend all disbelief, set aside all of your urges to
dissect and analyze and understand from within your existing thought framework
what I am talking about. You pretend. (This is not lying.) You say to yourself,
"Hmmmm. What if anything is possible? If I were to approach this particular situation
or problem in my life or at work or elsewhere, what else might be possible, if anything
is actually possible?" The point of this is to let go of the pre-existing limitations of
your mind. The Lester anecdote about nuclear war was an extreme example. Is it
"true"? I don't know. The point is to play the game and say, "Hmmm. What if it *were*
true? Can I think of any kind of thought framework that might help me pretend as if
it's true, so I might get some other experience of the principle his comment was
referring to?" You don't actually need to create an enabling thought framework, if you
can be more like a child and just say, "OK. I'll pretend that for awhile." But lots of
adults can't just do that.
The point is that once you start pretending and playing as if something that
previously seemed impossible *might* be true, you can often enable something new
to occur in your direct experience.
This, in turn, causes other changes--in you, and because you are now relating
differently to reality, your experienced reality also changes.
Based on the discussion on this thread, I've decided that in the Possibility Paradigm I
will overtly introduce the notion of the Possibility Game, and introduce the idea of
levels of play.
You start at Level 0, then move up through the levels. There are probably 4 levels of
mastership that I would identify at this point. The Lester anecdote should probably
only be introduced to Level 4 players, because at earlier levels of play, players won't
be able to understand or engage in Level 4 conversations or experiences.
I very much appreciate your efforts to understand what I'm saying. I know you have
never called this "nonsense," but some others on this thread have. As I've said, it can
indeed appear nonsensical when you try to understand it from within a different
paradigm. The idea that nothing is accepted as true unless proven (the scientific
method) is not applicable here. In this paradigm, everything is treated as if it might be
true (unless it can be proven that it's definitely not, which is not really possible,
because there could always be an instance that didn't act like previous cases). This is
as valid a way to approach "reality" as the other method. (Please note that. The
scientific method proponents tend to act as if their method is the only valid way to
approach reality. That's intellectual snobbery.) I'm introducing a game that allows
anyone who wants to play it a crack at experiencing What else is possible? in a game
of unlimited possibility.
Unlimited Possibility, of course, is Level 4, so don't go there yet! I guess that's why
people on this thread feel such danger afoot. (I only just understood that.) Maybe it
*is* dangerous to jump to advanced levels, after all, without adequate preparation!
Next time I'll include a warning and try to identify which practices are for advanced
players, and which are for beginners.
Thanks for your contributions, Edward. I have found them illuminating.
Six impossible things before breakfast

I'm sorry to have lightly neglected to state clearly (in my earlier comment) that I'm far
from accepting the (so called post-modernist) claim that, for instance, a myth is on
the same level as a scientific theory or explanation.
This said, however, the quote from Alice in Wonderland (and the reference to Paul
Auster's book) stands for itself, so to speak - which is to say, for any pertinent use
anyone sees fit ("pertinent" being the [disputable] key word, I guess). Since the
Possability Game starts (so it seems) with the most emblematic question ("What
if...?") of any thought experiment (philosophical or scientific), it is, at least at the
outset, as pertinent as any thought experiment.
But I would venture to guess that none of the following examples of assertions (or
'certainties') would be coined with *true* or *possible*:
- I can travel alone to the moon;
- if I don't breathe for an hour, I won't die;
- the world didn't exist before I was born;
- if my arm were cut off, it could grow again;
- people who lived on Earth 150 years ago cannot be alive today;
- one day I will die.
Since April that this thread is open (and the comments are never left unanswered )
and hence (that's my 'declaration of appreciation') I praise the (sometimes)
strenuous but (always) attentive answers.
Six impossible things, and more...

Hi Paulo,
I'm sorry for my delayed response. Thanks very much for your comment.
For the six things you list that you "guess" would not "be coined with *true* or
*possible,*" please see my responses to Jacobite, below.
I would put those "six impossible things" we might try believing before breakfast in
the category of "advanced level" play in the Possibility Game. Usually only advanced
level players would tackle them. :) Which is to say, in the Possibility Paradigm, at the
highest levels of play, no possibility or "impossibility" is banished from our
consciousness/consideration. If you want to play the game--in order to expand your
own thinking, and hence also potentially expand what might be able to become true
in your experience, you start by 1) applying Possibility Principle #1 to anything that
strikes you as "impossible"; and 2) you apply Principle #2--Change your paradigm--
and keep changing it until you find one that allows for the thing you consider
impossible to possibly be true.
Your list:
- I can travel alone to the moon;

- if I don't breathe for an hour, I won't die;
- the world didn't exist before I was born;
- if my arm were cut off, it could grow again;
- people who lived on Earth 150 years ago cannot be alive today;
- one day I will die.
In my own personal Possibility Game--I've been playing the game for years, moving to
new levels--I can look at your list of six "impossibles" and immediately think of ways
that any of them might possibly be considered "true." (I am wondering if, for the last
one, you mean "I will never die"?)
What happens once the mind has expanded enough to allow something to be
"potentially true" or "possibly true" is up to the player.
You might do nothing but stop there and just enjoy your more expanded mindset.
That alone is likely to naturally result in a generally more flexible approach to other
problems, situations, and new ideas.
You might do as Jacobite proposes, i.e., sift through the possible "explanatory
frameworks" that you've come up with and choose the ones you will logically accept,
and then begin to explore them from within your logical framework. That might be
useful for a scientist, for example. However, that would not be an option, at the "most
advanced" levels of play. (Again, see my responses to Jacobite.)
Another thing that could happen, as a follow-on to your playing with expanding your
mental frameworks, is that you might find that certain things spontaneously happen,
giving you new experiences related to the ideas you've been playing with--which you
were less likely to have experienced before. For instance, you might read a news
article, see a TED talk, or come across a researcher who is studying what is believed
in his/her peer group of scientists to be an element necessary to the growing of new
limbs in humans. (I think there actually is a TED talk related to this?)
Or, at very advanced levels of the game, you might understand a principle that
actually enables *you* to effect the regrowing of a limb, either by "reasonable and
logical" standards of what's possible or by something totally new and outside the
bounds of what most people would consider "real." This would likely to be considered
by other people to be in the realm of the "miraculous."
The latter is very "far-out" stuff. It's what makes the thought-police go into reflexive
apoplexy. (See my first post to Jacobite.) But as I've noted before, the Possibility
Paradigm is basically a game. For me, it becomes much more fun, engaging, and
potentially useful if I allow myself to play it to the hilt.
You may not want to go there--and I wouldn't advise going there prematurely; it
might be too shocking for the logically-trained and focused mind. But, from my point
of view, that's where the game gets really interesting.
Hi Pamela, Clearly as soon as

Hi Pamela,
Clearly as soon as you claim that the rules of argumentation and logic are off, all
reasonable argument is over, so I will stop here. I comment on this all in this blog
post, however.
With every kind wish.
Edward
Yes
Submitted by Dr. Pamela Gerloff on September 27, 2011 - 7`52am
Yes, argument does not have a place in the Possibility Paradigm or the Possibility
Game. It's not about arguing about whose perspective is right or wrong, what is
"true" or "false", "objective" or "subjective". It's about expanding awareness through
a different method.
That's why the logicians' and some others' comments on this thread miss the point.
Scientists, lawyers, logicians, and philosophers argue and debate--that's how they
function; that's how their game is set up, in order to develop a body of knowledge
and advance the collective understanding in their particular domains.
In the Possibility Paradigm, you don't argue and debate. You try something out, you
compare your experiences with others', you inquire of others' points of view, to see
what insights they might offer you. You brainstorm together, you deliberately blow
your mind circuits. And you laugh.
Until this discussion thread, I thought all that was obvious. I see I was mistaken, and
that is instructive to me. I will need to be more explicit about "the rules of the game"
in the future.
I'm grateful to all who have helped me clarify and understand this.
The Possibility Paradigm is whole other world.

The Possibility Game is a whole other game.
It's like going to another planet that has completely different "laws of nature" than are
operative on your home planet.
You have to orient yourself before you can function there.
Your blog link didn't work for me. I'll try again later.
Edward, please post my reply to your blog post

Submitted by Dr. Pamela Gerloff on September 27, 2011 - 9`34am
Hi again, Edward,
Would you please post this reply to your blog post? I tried posting it myself but don't
have any of the accounts required to post on your site. If your site doesn't allow this
long a post, please post it in 2 sections as follows. Thanks, in advance, for the
opportunity to offer my perspective to your readers.(Some of it repeats what I've
already said on this site.
-Pamela
PAMELA'S RESPONSE-PART I
What Edward has not understood about my column is that it is not meant as a
scientific, logical treatise. It is a playful column about possibility. It is written as an
artist writes. It presents ideas in ways that are aesthetically pleasing to the writer. It is
an invitation into a fun and delightful game.
I am proposing a different paradigm--a basic thought framework from which we can

think, act, and play in possibilities, in order to explore and possibly realize new
potentials, both individually and as a species.
Edward cannot understand this paradigm from within his own existing paradigm. It is
simply not possible. To say this is not pulling out a "get out of jail free" card, as
Edward asserts. It is simply to acknowledge that two paradigms--two games--with
nearly opposite rules don't mesh. A more productive way to approach them, I
suggest, is to explore them each separately without needing to assert that one
paradigm is superior to the other.
Edward doesn't have to play the game. But to pick apart a column written about and
from within a different paradigm--instead of trying it out and playing the game--is
like a soccer player being invited into a game of baseball and, instead of playing,
standing on the sidelines and claiming that the rules of baseball are inconsistent and
illogical and not worthy of play because they are not the rules of soccer.
In the Possibility Paradigm and the Possibility Game, argument does not have a place.
The Possibility Game is not about whose perspective is right or wrong, what is true or
false, objective or subjective, logical or illogical. The game is about expanding
awareness through a different method than other paradigms use.
That's why Edward's arguments miss the point. Logicians and philosophers,
scientists, lawyers, all argue and debate--that's how they function; that's how their
game is set up, in order to develop a body of knowledge and advance the collective
understanding in their particular domains.
In the Possibility Paradigm, you approach things differently. You don't argue and
debate. You try something out, you compare your experiences with others', you
inquire of others' points of view, to see what insights they might offer you. You
brainstorm together, you deliberately blow your mind circuits. And you laugh. The
method of engagement is both an individual and a joint, collaborative effort of
searching for connections and possibilities, not disconnections and impossibilities.
PAMELA'S RESPONSE-PART II
Until Edward and a few similar-minded others commented on my article, I thought all
that was obvious. From within the Possibility Paradigm it *is* obvious.
Now I realize that the Possibility Paradigm is, for some people, a whole other world.
The Possibility Game is a whole other game. For such people, it's like going to
another planet that has completely different "laws of nature" than are operative on
their home planet.
In cases like that, you have to orient yourself before you can function there.
Edward, dear being that he is--I rather like, enjoy, and appreciate Edward, from what I
know of him through his comments--is not interested in playing the Possibility Game,
nor in orienting himself to its rules of play. He has made that clear. He is interested in
playing his game, which is to apply his already-existing operating framework to a
piece of writing in order to provide evidence that demonstrates or proves (in his
mind) that the Possibility Game is not worth playing.
And, by the way, Edward has musunderstood, and therefore misrepresented, various
assertions in my column. Lester did make the nuclear statement, as far as I can tell
from my sources. I am saying that instead of automatically dismissing Lester's
assertion, which sounds fantastical, we play the Possibility Game and see if we can
expand our thought frameworks enough to enable ourselves to take it in *as a
possibility*, and then see, from there, what other possibilities can open up for us in
our own direct experience.
That's not illogical. That's playing the Possibility Game to the hilt. (It was also obvious
to many readers.)
As I noted in my comments on the Psychology Today website, there are different

levels of play in the Possibility Game, from beginner to advanced. Lester was a
master player, probably one of the most advanced Possibililty Game players of all
time. I myself aspire to such a level of mastery. I still have a ways to go. :)
Thanks, Edward, for the opportunity to respond to your critique.
P.S.
P.S. A slight correction: When I say it is not possible for Edward to understand what
my column said and was about from within his operative paradigm, I mean that it is
not possible unless there is a willingness on Edward's part to at least step into the
possibility game a little bit and try to incorporate the new paradigm into his existing
one, just to see what might result. This requires a certain facility of mind and an
ability and willingness to hold two apparent opposites in mind at once.
It's too bad that Quenton (Vern) Hunter, an amateur philosopher I knew, died
suddenly a short time ago. He was a rare master of both paradigms, demonstrating
that it is indeed possible for philosophers to play the Possibility Game in the extreme,
and delight in it. He was a pretty advanced player.
What exactly are you asserting here?

Submitted by jacobite on September 28, 2011 - 5`34am
Hi Pamela,
I admit I haven't read all the comments and your responses, but I'm not clear what it
is you were trying to get across in your article. Are you saying that there is another
"reality" which is only accessible if you truly believe? or that the "possibility
paradigm" is only a more efficient means to an end which could be achieved by other
means?
By the latter, I mean that by playing the game of "possibility", you are led to insights
which, in hindsight, are perfectly logical, but are unlikely to be be discovered by
logical or analytical thinking in the first place.
For example, Einstein's theory of relativity was (apparently) sparked by him imagining
riding on a beam of light. This is clearly an impossibility by current scientific
standards, but by tracing out the implications of such a possibility, he was able to
come to a new understanding.
Obviously this is very different from actually asserting that it is really possible to ride
on a beam of light. An analogous example is suggested by the possibility that you
could survive a nuclear explosion going off right next to you. The assumption that this
might be true could lead to other ways of looking at what is meant by explosion; for
example, if a nuclear IMplosion was possible, then it may well be possible to survive if
you were in close proximity to it.
What I'm getting at is similar to creativity guru Edward de Bono's notion of what he
calls "PO" (meaning Provocative Operation).
"Edward de Bono's key concept is that logical, linear and critical thinking has
limitations because it is based on argumentation. The traditional critical thinking
processes of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are reductive, designed to eliminate all but
the truth. In many of de Bono's books, he calls for the more important need for
creative thinking as a constructive way though that is deliberately designed. In de
Bono's first book, Mechanism of Mind, he wrote of the importance to disrupt the
dominant patterns preferred by human brain design to facilitate potential creative
abilities." (from the Wiki entry on Edward de Bono).
So the purpose of your "possibility paradigm" is not to suggest that such

"provocations" are ACTUALLY possible; they only exist in order to facilitate an escape
from the tendency of the mind towards logical, linear thinking.
This is stronger than merely suspending judgement; it's more of an active mental
operation designed to bypass the natural tendency of mind to flow along channels
which have already been formed. (de Bono discusses this aspect of thinking in his
first book "The Mechanism of Mind").
Of course, after such provocations have "done their work", as it were, then logical
thinking must be used in order to filter out what is really possible from what isn't.
Every good idea must be logical in HINDSIGHT (otherwise it wouldn't be perceived as
a good idea), but that doesn't mean that you would necessarily have been led to the
idea through logical thinking.
re: what am I asserting here?

Dear Jacobite,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and well stated comment.
re: "Are you saying that there is another 'reality' which is only accessible if you truly
believe?"
No. I'm not talking about "positive thinking" (as some on this thread have inferred),
nor about "truly believing."
I am asserting the rest of what you stated. By approaching a problem, idea,
situation--anything--with a "What if this is possible? *How* might this be possible?"
attitude, we are more able to expand the limitations we normally place on our
thinking. This is applicable in the examples you cite (Einstein and Lester), as well as in
other domains, such as paintbrush design and urban blight (as I noted in my earlier
column on The Possibility Principles. See link, below), in teaching and education,
parenting, business, psychology, religion and spirituality, negotiation, governance,
etc. My article and the Possibility Paradigm itself do not *necessarily* "suggest that
such provocations are ACTUALLY possible," as you write; "they... exist in order to
facilitate an escape from the tendency of the mind towards logical, linear thinking."
So I would say you have accurately understood the main point of my article. Thank
you for stating it so elegantly.
I would also say that you can fruitfully play what I have now started to call "the
Possibility Game" in exactly the way you describe, and as I think--as you do--that
Einstein played it (though of course he most likely didn't call it that).
However, although I did not intend in the column to actually *assert* anything more
than you described--as I said, you can play the Possibility Game and use the
Possibility Paradigm in any area of endeavor in exactly the way you noted--I,
nonetheless, personally play the game yet more expansively; and I would say that in
the column, there is a playful hint of invitation to join me in an even higher, "more
advanced"--i.e., "wilder," harder-for-the-logical-mind-to-believe, and therefore more
"challenging"--level of play. Playing at the new level, I find, takes one into whole other
realms of possibility, with very interesting results.
Because of the conversation on this thread, I realized that it might be useful to

distinguish what we might call "levels of play" in the Possibility Game and the
Possibility Paradigm. I hadn't thought of this idea before. Most people probably need
to play at the level you're talking about (or even more basically, perhaps--whatever
that might mean) before moving on to the next "level of challenge."
My own evolution in ability to accept radically expanded possibilities of what might

actually be possible in the "real" world has occurred gradually, over a period of many
years. Although I did not used to think as I do now, I now easily accept Possibility
Principle #1, i.e., "Anything is possible," as *actually* a "true proposition" (even if
certain possibilities are less likely, or even very unlikely, to occur). I no longer put any
"logical" limits on what is possible.
I can't tell if you just gagged up there, but I'll go on. :)
This is why the scientists, logical philosophers, and others of their ilk (a.k.a.
"thought-police vigilantes," as I playfully, yet pointedly, describe them to myself--
those people who are valiantly keeping the world safe from "dangerous"
philosophies--have so much trouble with this particular column. You, for example,
can probably pretty easily accept the Possibility Paradigm and play the game rather
skillfully at the level you describe.
But what happens when you try to play it at the next level up?
(I find this an interesting mind experiment, and maybe you would too.)
If you wanted to play the Possibility Game at a new level of challenge, you might play
it in the way Lester's students did. They went "Whoa. How could *that* be true?" The
mind freaks out. But instead of automatically shutting down their minds--as the
logical mind will naturally do--they sucked it up, went to the diner, and started
playing with wild and crazy possibilities. They probably came up with some scenarios
similar to what you came up with when you contemplated Lester's bold assertion. I
think they probably came up with some others as well.
At the highest levels of play, I would say the rules of the game are slightly different. At
those levels, your last paragraph does not apply. You do not ever, in your mind,
consider that "logical thinking must be used in order to filter out what is really
possible from what isn't." You accept Possibility Principle #1--Anything is possible--
literally (as far as is possible for you, given any remaining limitations of your mind),
not just as a convenient or engaging fiction that allows you to expand your mind to a
significant degree, and then revert back to logic to sort out what is *actually*
possible. You become willing to blow the lid off, risk everything, and stride into
unknown territory. Then, you apply Possibility Principle #2, which is The Paradigm
Principle:
Part A: If something isn't possible from within your paradigm, change your paradigm.
Part B: Keep changing paradigms until you find one from which that thing is possible.
(For the full article, "The Possibility Principles," with the tag line: "What if the
principles are useful? Even if you don't believe they're true," see
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-possibility-paradigm/201104/the-
possibility-principles-0
When you do this, something quite different--and even more useful, from my point of
view--becomes possible.
That I will discuss some other time as this post is already long-- either in the
comments section or in a new article in the Possibility Paradigm.
Thanks again for your inquiry. I appreciate your willingness to engage with these
ideas, and to share your own knowledge and perspective.
-Pamela
P.S. See my next comment. There are in fact some other assertions in the column. (I
just reread it.)
P.S. Additional assertions

Jacobite,
I just reread my article. There is a key assertion in it that you didn't overtly mention,
although you described one aspect of it. That is, that as you expand your mind's
ability to allow more things to be possible, theoretically, you simultaneously expand
your ability to allow more things to be possible practically, in your own direct
experience. (That's a major reason the Possibility Game/Paradigm is useful.) This can
work in different ways. One way, as you mentioned, is that it allows you to come up
with ideas you probably wouldn't have thought of before, and then you can logically
figure out how to take action (scientific or otherwise) from your new understandings.
We might call that the de Bono approach.
I'm also suggesting that it can work in other ways, as well. Please see my reply to
Paolo, for some thoughts on that.
Also: There is something in my article that I think merits a bit more attention. The way
that Lester approached his healing crisis (we might call it) was to "let go of" all his
"negative feelings". By experimenting on himself, he found that he could easily
"release" old stored-up feelings that were keeping him unhappy (like anger,
resentment, grief, etc.)--much as children will naturally let go of unpleasant feelings
very quickly and just move on to the next moment. (Note: His method was neither
verbal nor expressive/emoting, as some more traditional psychological approaches
are.) As he did this, he found himself getting happier and happier. Eventually, Lester
got so happy he could hardly stand it. (Not all of this is in the article, but it's part of
Lester's biography.) At that point, it occurred to him to wonder "What would happen if
I let go of this feeling too?" When he also "let go of" his "positive" feelings, he slipped
into a state of inner peace--mental quiet--so profound that, he says--and people
who knew him report--nothing ever disturbed his mental and emotional state again.
He called that state "imperturbability." As I note in my article, some have called it
"enlightenment."
I am not aware of any psychological studies of people who are considered to have
entered into the state of awareness that has traditionally been called enlightenment,
though perhaps they exist. There have been people throughout history who have
been said to be in this state, which is experientially different from the state of
awareness that most individuals on the planet currently experience. When Lester
talked of using the mind to effect changes, either inside or outside of oneself, he
wasn't talking about positive thinking or believe-it-hard-enough-and-it-will-happen
approaches to self-help.
His discoveries went far beyond that--even though they can, and often are, applied
by individuals to areas that are typically addressed by so-called self-help methods.
A central element of Lester's genius, from my perspective, is that his method was
simple, direct, and elegant, and he was able to formulate it so that others could also
experiment with it, just as he did. I expect to write more about Lester and his method
in my Possibility Paradigm columns, because some of what he discovered applies
directly to the Possibility Game.
This is dangerous nonsense.

Submitted by Bruce Wright on September 29, 2011 - 12`40pm
My 'Course in Miracles'-believing parents smoked cigarettes for years with the strong
belief that cancer was easily visualized away.
All a line a dishonest church taught them, while taking every dime of their savings...
This garbage... and I use the term because a stronger word would not let this post
pass... this utter filth.. causes more problems than it fixes.
It's "blame the sick". Oh, did little Johnny die of a disease? He must not have been
smiling enough. Time for the Children's Hospital to fire doctors and hire more clowns.
Disease is not caused or cured by 'good thoughts'. It's caused by the fact that there
are germs, viruses, injuries and our bodies are not perfect platonic forms. We're
organisms... we suffer disease. It's part of life itself. This line of thinking denies a
central truth of life: we suffer. We are imperfect. We are mortal. Medicine is our
imperfect best hope. Not wishing. If wishing worked better than medicine, then
cavemen wouldn't have had life expectancies of around 25 years. They had all the
same abilities as we do to think happy thoughts, wish away the Sabretooths, the
pnumonia, the smallpox.
By the way, smallpox. What was it that wiped it off the face of the earth? Did
everyone get together and wish it? Did the whole planet sing a song and wish it
away? No? Oh, right, it was MEDICINE that did that. Sorry.
And no, we cannot fly. The fact that THAT has to be pointed out shows how
*phenomenally* out of touch with reality the author is.
This is what Psychology Today has become? The "Wish, and your dreams will come
true" magazine?
The dark side of which is this: I guess those starving people, or folks with AIDS
should just whistle a happier tune, and visualize a tuna sandwich or an end to Malaria.
Which absolves us rich westerners of any moral need to do anything to help them...
except of course thinking happy thoughts. Meanwhile millions die. Guess they weren't
happy enough.
Sick.
sorry
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. My article was not about anything your comments
discuss. (Lester's experiences were not the result of "wishing" or "positive thinking"
or Course in Miracles, and neither is the Possibility Paradigm.)
Thank you for your post, though. I appreciate hearing from readers.
Six impossible things and the next level

Hi, Pamela.
«(I am wondering if, for the last one, you mean "I will never die"?)»
Yes, of course, thank you for noting the mistake! (and the 5th is also wrong: "People
who lived on Earth 150 years ago CAN be alive today")
«What happens once the mind has expanded enough to allow something to be
"potentially true" or "possibly true" is up to the player.
You might do nothing but stop there and just enjoy your more expanded mindset.»
That would be my upmost level, I guess. And I'm afraid I'm not able (within an
hospitable frame of mind) to understand what could be 'living' (for a while, at least) in
an advanced level. I mean, if I were in the same room with a person who had reached
a very advanced level on the game and who were genuinely willing to explain or
describe instances of her or his level (a short good-will workshop, shall we say), I'm
fairly sure I would not understand her or him (not at present - I mean, here I'm tryng
not to presume that it's impossible a radical change in me in the near or far future).
You might do as Jacobite proposes...»

Yes, I might enjoy that (it's not that unusual...). But, after toying awhile with those
promising ideas, I would probably (sooner or later) switch back (I suspect you'd be
tempted to say 'relapse into') to some kind of more or less straight logical thinking.
Altough I'm not particularly fond of de Bono's teachings, I quite agree with the
orientation of Jacobite's comment (namely, his last three paragraphs).
Furthermore, I don't really know if I should tip my hat to someone who claims to have
reached the highest level (or one of the highest levels) of the game. For now, at least,
I'm not adverse to playing (which of course is far from mastering) the art of allowing.
re: the next level

Thank you, Paulo. I appreciate your efforts to "allow." :)
re: "I would probably (sooner or later) switch back (I suspect you'd be tempted to say
'relapse into') to some kind of more or less straight logical thinking."
I would actually go with your term "switch back," not "relapse into." Perhaps using the
term "levels of play" is not the best word formulation, because it can easily imply a
hierarchy of "better" levels of play.
By "higher" or "more advanced" levels I mean "more challenging to the logical mind."
To act as if *anything* is possible is more challenging to the logical mind than to act
as if *almost anything* is possible; hence, I call the former "playing the game at a
higher level." It's not necessarily a "better" level.
It is "better" in the sense of expanding options, so that when resolving a problem, for
example, you would likely have a greater range of options to choose from, because
you've allowed your mind to make more available to you.
I do think, though, that as more possibilities are allowed into your repertoire, the
effort required to solve a problem diminishes, e.g., fixing a TV set by "seeing it as
perfect" requires less effort than physically taking it apart and repairing
malfunctioning parts.
My view is that the possibility game is mainly about choice, allowing ourselves to
have more options. The "more advanced" level of play you arrive at, the more choices
you have in how you approach anything. So, as Jacobite proposed, you might
deliberately choose to play with expanding your mindset for awhile with regard to a
particular problem, and then you might later choose to "go back to" a "more logical"
approach. That's totally fine, and I think could be viewed as "the best choice" in some
situations. You simply choose which approach you prefer to use at any moment or
which is most appropriate in your context.
For instance, if you were capable of fixing a TV set merely by (a) "seeing it as
perfect," you might do that. Or you might just (b) take it apart, jiggle a few wires, and
put it back together, if you knew how to do that. Or you might (c) take it in to the
repair shop. If you can do all three options, you might at any moment choose any one
of them. If you are capable of only b and c, you could choose among two options. If
you can't do a and b, then you have only option c to choose from.
If you're playing the logic game because it's the only one you know how to play, your
options are fewer than someone who can play both "the logic game" and "the
possibility game." I like to expand my options.
As you say, playing a game is different from mastering it. We play it so we can learn to
master it.
You don't have to tip your hat to me! But it would be fun if you'd join me in the game.
If you're genuinely interested, you could send me your email address (you can do this
through the PT website--there should be a link at the bottom of the article) and I'll
send you a couple of tips I've found useful for "advancing to higher levels of play."
P.S. re: logic

In my previous post to you I referred to "the logic game" and "the possibility game."
That's kind of a short-hand way of referring to two different approaches. I'd like to
add, though, that the possibility game has its own internal logic. As you play the
game awhile, you begin to see that.
Pamela, thanks for the

Submitted by jacobite on October 1, 2011 - 7`17am
Pamela, thanks for the detailed replies. I have to admit that you've left me behind with
your "higher levels". At the lower levels, its seems, the possibility paradigm is
compatible with the de Bono approach - it basically functions as a brainstorming
technique.
However, it seems that there's a huge leap between the levels. To be honest, I can't
see any connection at all. It's one thing to "free" your mind from the standard models
and constraints for purposes of idea/hypothesis generation and quite another to
assert (or at least, suggest) that thoughts and ideas can directly affect the external
world in the way you describe. I have to agree with Tony Lloyd in that it you seem to
have confused the generation of hypotheses (or possibilities) with the idea that
merely by changing the hypotheses formulated you thereby change the world. Surely
this is nothing but magical thinking?
You have written above:
"Everything I experience in the external world is of my own interpretation and

construction. Everything in life is subjective. (Even scientists have noticed that the
observer influences whether a subatomic entity appears as a wave or a particle, so
this part should not really seem so strange.)"
If EVERYTHING in life was subjective, then there would be no such thing as shared
knowledge or objective facts or apparent laws which worked for everyone and
everything (such as gravity). In such a world, cause and effect would have no
meaning. It could very well be the case that such laws as we now take for granted will
be overturned by future discoveries, and as you have pointed out, science has often
changed its models of reality. But, those changes have not been arbitrary (as you
seem to be suggesting), but have occurred as a result of an increase in knowledge.
More often, scientific theories are expanded, not overturned, in order to incorporate
the advances in knowledge. Therefore, the "old" Newtonian model is not "wrong",
and never will be - it just applies to a more limited domain than the equations of
quantum mechanics.
Also, keep in mind that the observer effect you allude to does not apply to the
"macroscopic" world, only the microscopic world. Not only that, but it's part of an
INTERPRETATION of quantum theory (the Copenhagen interpretation). There are
other interpretations which resolve the apparent paradoxical effects.
I understand
Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on October 1, 2011 - 8`53am
Hi Jacobite,
I understand your point of view. (I especially appreciate your non-aggressive
presentation of it.)
That's why I've said that to even begin to grasp what I'm saying "at higher levels of
the game," you have to make another sort of shift, what I can only call a shift of
awareness. This is an experiential shift which cannot be understood from the thought
framework(s) you are currently using to understand the world.
That, of course, was/is way too much to address in a single column, or even here.
The rules of your framework apply in a particular way within a particular domain--
within the domain that you call "reality."
But what if you could enter a domain in which whether one is influenced by gravity or
not is a matter of choice? What if you could enter a domain of experience in which
cause and effect do not function as they do in the usual experience of "reality"? What
if reality as we usually know it can and does work differently when it is approached
and experienced from a different level of awareness?
These are the kinds of "What if?" questions one might entertain at what I am calling,
for want of better terminology, "advanced levels" of the Possibility Game.
(I understand that what I just wrote will send certain readers of this comment thread
into apoplexy. Sorry about that.)
My sense is that people who are exploring or playing in the territory where those
kinds of questions are allowable did not usually enter that territory because they
wanted to explore far-out thinking frameworks. They typically started asking those
kinds of questions only because either (a) they themselves spontaneously had direct,
personal experiences they could not explain from any thought framework known to
them or (b) they came across someone whose consciousness (awareness) seemed
very different from their own and they wanted to experience for themselves what that
person was experiencing, or (c) someone showed them a "mental exercise"or
process that gave them a direct experience of some sort of awareness shift, and then
they wanted more.
There is so much more to say about all of this, and I do think it's too much for a
discussion thread. As a next step, if you wanted to take one, you might try playing
with Burt Goldman's "Quantum Jumping" method. You can get the free intro course
on his website, www.burtgoldman.com. Burt is in his 80s and has been seriously
playing with this for decades. I've tried it and do it from time to time, and I have
introduced it to some friends. We've found it astonishingly fun and intriguing.
Burt makes no claims that it's *actually* doing what the name suggests. He says it
could just be a psychological technique that produces results in the "real" world. (I
agree with that assessment--that's what it could be.) But he does ask "What if" kinds
of questions that might lead one to consider new paradigms of thought for oneself.
Either way, it doesn't matter, because the point of his Quantum Jumping game is that
it can be fun and useful. Just try it and see.
That is also the point of my column on possibility. Whether something is literally true
or not is hardly worth discussion, really, in my view. It's whether or not an insight or
thought framework is useful to you that matters. If my little "You Mean Anything Is
Possible?" essay is not useful to you, I advocate discarding it. If it's useful, then use
it. That's all.
Thanks again for your comments.
Next level
Submitted by Paulo Lopes on October 1, 2011 - 7`37pm
Hi, Pamela.
Jumping (but not yet quantum jumping :}) to the invitation on your last paragragh,
thank you (I've just sent you an email).
True Creativity
Submitted by JunkFoodMonkey on October 3, 2011 - 7`56am
True creativity is not thinking of a hundred uses for a brick, or imaging that one can
survive a nuclear explosion: it is the ability to solve new problems; to induce general
principles; and to construct sound explanatory theories.
Too often people mistakenly identify creativity with the ability to produce unusual but
meaningless material.
agreed
Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on October 3, 2011 - 2`32pm
I agree.
the possibilities
Submitted by straywolf on February 23, 2012 - 10`01pm
I would love to see change in the world as well. What we have right now is definitely
not working and I have to agree with Pamela that we have to change our thinking and
open our minds beyond the limited possibilities we have been made to believe. The
mind is the real trap and the beliefs we hold. I truly believe that anything is possible
but we have restricted ourselves with our collective beliefs. We cannot fly because,
since the dawn of time we have believed that we cannot fly, so it is the belief of all
that won't allow for anything different. There are however, notable exceptions in
history i.e. Saint Joseph of Cupertino aka, The Flying Friar.(http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino) I think Pamela is on the right track and that if enough
people believe something is possible, it becomes possible. Why would you want to
limit yourself anyway? Bruce Lee kept pushing himself beyond his limits to prove that
the mind IS the only limiting factor. So entertain the possibilities!
re: the possibilities

Submitted by Pamela Gerloff on February 23, 2012 - 11`56pm
Thanks for very much for your comment, Straywolf, and for the reference to St.
Joseph of Cupertino. I was not familiar with his life story and am pleased to have
learned about him.
Personally, I am rather fond of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance.
Whether or not it is "true," it has a lot of explanatory power. One implication of the
theory is that as more and more people acquire a skill or a heightened level of
performance, it becomes easier for others to also attain that skill or performance
capacity. We see this all the time. Classic example: the four-minute mile. Once one
person achieved this seemingly "impossible" feat, many people quickly became able
to also run at that speed. So St. Cupertino, it would appear, may serve a very useful
purpose, even now, centuries later, in helping the collective expand into new
possibilities...
As I recall, Sheldrake explains the phenomenon of sudden leaps in new species
capacities not in terms of "belief," but more in terms of "blueprints" in a field of
information (morphogenetic fields), creating patterns that affect all who have access
to that field--but I do think, as you point out, that collective beliefs play a role in
either limiting or expanding possibilities for the human species. As soon as one
person demonstrates a new possibility, it becomes far easier for others to change
their more limited beliefs--except, perhaps, for those who are highly committed to
orthodoxy, no matter what. A propos of that, I see Sheldrake has a new book out--
published January 2012--The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry. I think
I'll check into it. In the meantime, I'll study up on St. Joseph, my new patron saint. :)
Anything Is Possible.
Submitted by Molly Jones on March 5, 2012 - 1`31pm
I think that for the most part, anything that is humanly possible, can be achieved. It's
a great attitude to take on. Providing yourself with limited boundaries, and convincing
yourself/empowering yourself to believe that you can achieve your goals is important
to help you reach your goals. I use a trick where I write what I want to achieve in an
actionable sentence on my mirror, and it provides a subconscious reminder to stay on
track with your goals. Ex: "I will lose 10 pounds this year." by doing this it registers in
your head that you do want to achieve that goal. It works for me. and really, anything
is possible.

Lester Levenson - Psychology Today

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Lester Levenson - Psychology Today

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Lester Levenson - Psychology Today

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What was Lester Levenson's discovery about his health condition?

What was Lester Levenson's discovery about his health condition?

How did Lester Levenson's students expand their minds?

How did Lester Levenson's students expand their minds?

Can Anything Be Possible?

Story of a man named Lester Levenson ,

Posted Apr 19, 2011

COMMENTS from READERS:

Thank you for this article!

re: Have I met Mr. Levenson?

hope and possibility

re: the difference between hope and possibility

That said, I personally relate more to a "possiblity paradigm" than to a "hope

dangerously exaggerates power of positive thinking

Agreed - "POPT" sounds like

re: "dangerous" "positive thinking"

(The thought-framework that I approach possibilities with is quantum-physics based.

The mind will clamp shut at that--because it is committed to limitation.

This is 'men who stare at goats' territory, surely?

Try what it suggests and see for yourself.

you might try what the column suggests

I appreciate that viewpoint, although from a Possibility Paradigm point of view,

Thanks for the reply Dr

... but now you say:

Until you've done that, your objections are meaningless.

I'll agree that when you

Positive thoughts relating to placebos

All pseudoscience aside, there is a fascinting article by Nicholas Humphrey PhD

Great expectations: the evolutionary psychology of faith-healing and the placebo

P.S. By the Way #3

Lester Levenson was a physicist, then an engineer, then a businessman. He had a

Ay, it's the Law of

Well, let me know when you

re: nuclear annoyance

These ideas are meant to open and expand our minds.

Goodness me. You do talk a

Imagination may be limitless, but not sure reality is...

Possibility Pamela: "In

Measure your words & provide evidence

"In essence, they gave their

Modern neuroscience disavows the pop psychology, phrenology based hemispherical

re: left brain

Not sure what you think?

Thanks to you and everybody else for posting.

Anyway, thanks for you time.

"think" yourself well.

However, some of us have suggested it might be dangerous to encourage people to

re: Christian Science

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

the straw-man strikes again-

that's one way

See my post to Paolo re: options.

You're not quite correct

I am suggesting that by not automatically shutting down your openness to

Try it and see? I went to

Perhaps you would like to try my blancmange facepacks that produce a

Thanks for all of your posts

Thanks Zach. As a rule, no we

Hi Pamela Incidentally the

P.S. This Just In

CERN: Light Speed May Have Been Exceeded By Sub-atomic Particle

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Hi again Pamela. I too heard