Hello Don,
Have you ever said that adding Amethyst to tb’s softens the orgone energy?
Just wanted to check with you to find out if this was disinformation or not…I know sticking with the basic tb ingredients is best, especially for a beginner. But I noticed that one of the recommended vendors on EW states that he adds low grade amethyst to tb’s because it strengthens the power, so I’m wondering what your knowledge is of the effect of adding amethyst to tb’s?
Thank You for your reply,
Kind regards,
Karen
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thx, Karen–any crystal at all works fine for field pieces. I don’t know who made the amethyst statement but it’s possible that the vendor is energy sensitive and prefers to interact with amethyst energy for now. Most sensitives assume that their own preferences apply to everyone else but there’s no malice or egoism in that, I think.
This is no different, as far as I can tell, from having a favorite color, music style or food.
Most energy sensitives are not aware of the implied ‘authoritariian’ dynamic of posting one’s beliefs on the web, so I try my best to demonstrate to them that any statement that is made without a qualifying comment about it’s subjective nature will be taken by many readers as ‘a truth.’ To say that the energy is softer actually doesn’t relate, in a real way, to how effectively a towerbuster turns a death tower into a life force generator. According to Carol and others who see energy it takes around 20 minutes for any towerbuster to accomplish this and the results are the same.
The implication that amethyst ‘makes the energy softer’ has the color of claiming that it’s superior, though the person who said that probably didn’t even mean to imply it. I’m more concerned about the effects of one’s statements than with the intention because of the tendency of all progressive movements, including this one, to turn into personality cults. We’ve managed for the past eight years to avoid being successfully labeled as a personality cult and that was not achieved accidentally [Image Can Not Be Found] , nor was it achieved for lack of a parade of ‘legends in their own minds’ who tried their best to put their names on this unorganized, grassroot movement. At the moment, the most strident claimant that this is a Don Croft personality cult is a charismatic, extremely clever fellow in Europe who uses a lot of names but seems jealous that one of his own catchy personal names isn’t identified with this wildly uncontrollable global effort [Image Can Not Be Found] The fellow is a lot smarter, more eloquent and probably more attractive than I am, after all.
Some reputable sensitives’ noses have gotten a little out of joint by my constant insistence that subjective impressions can’t be considered authoritative. Some of them are artists, just expressing a feeling or thought. In the West, artists sometimes have thin skins about criitiicism.
That said, for all personal, interactive orgonite devices these subjective impressions are as valuable as the earned reputation of the sensitive warrants. Another factor to consider is that if a particular reader resonates with the statements of a sensitive I encourage that person to follow through with his or her hunches and apply the recommendation. I never hesitate to follow my wife’s recommendations or approval for the personal/interactive deviices I build but I’m less inclined to follow the recommendations of any psychic whose character seems questionable to me in the moment. The fakers, who outnumber us on the internet, take the opposite approach to this work, so they don’t actually inspire a lot of people to accomplish great things with orgonite, the way that EW’s contributors regularly do.
I think that my personal approach is more or less in line with Dr Reich’s. He deplored groundless mysticism, which is usually the realm of authoritarian statements of some sensitives, also the realm of fakers. The sensitives I’m pleased to associate with consider group evaluations to be more valuable than indiviidual ones and this also seems to be more practical in terms of inspiring experimentors.
I know some well-meaning gifters who have built a lot of extraneous features into simple field devices just because some convincing fakers recommended them. When my wife looks at that stuff she generally sees a reduction in teh devices’ capacity instead of an improvement. I think I’ve been making enough noise about the basics in the past eight years that none of these Rube Goldberg variations have taken deep root.
Some sensitives, like Ryan McGinty, Kelly McKennon, Cesco and others, have created phenomenal interactive and field devices, a few of which we’ve adopted as basic recommendations. That said, some of the devices that reputable sensitives have made and promoted have not turned out to have merit. I think the market is the ultimate arbiter and that’s determined by the true effectiveness of an invention, not by personality considerations. This market/research dynamic is quite healthy and should be promoted even more.
I think that Manfred’s science forum ( ethericresearch.com ), once it’s gotten some momentum, is going to clear away most of the misleading dross that’s been distributed over the years by the more persistent fakers.
I absolutely do encourage newcomers to start out with the most basic instructions because if one is inclined to use fancy stuff he/she will then have a basis of comparison. I think this is the foundation of the empowering nature of gifting; all else seems to more like blind imitation, to me, which takes away from empowerment.
Thanks for your question and comments!
~Don
