trancenonZENsedance

I'm pretty happy with my good ole Audeze LCD-2 + Violectric V200 setup. Practically flat from 10 to 1000 hz (and not too shabby above that) and distortion isn't an issue even at volumes most sane people would refuse to even put them on (of course I'm unsane :D).

super-melodic synth metal (or something like that)

Juno Reactor 1. Rotorblade 2. Conga Fury 3. Ice Cube Etnica/Pleiadians 1. Trip Tonite 2. Plastic 3. Alcyone Filteria 1. Filteroid (Day @ 2 AM) 2. The Snuggling Snail 3. Night @ 12 PM and too many honorable mentions to start listing

Chakra & Avi - Insignificant Form of Life

I undestand what you say, but I don't think I've ever really fully realized this. The night sky with the stars appears too static to me, when I look at it, there is not enough movement for me to easily imagine our (my) position in space from a non-geocentric point of view, so to say. Of course I can conceptually visualize it in a way, but I have no real emotional reaction to it, when doing this, so I cannot, for myself, say, I'd have ever really "realized" it.

Contribooted.

Only that, which you cannot lose is truly yours and that's your own essence. You can try to make the world yours in your view by deluding yourself but then you just possess that delusion and you can still lose that view even if you wouldn't like to. You are the inside. The world is the outside. You have to fuse with the world to make the world yours, you need to dissolve the border, get beyond the seperation between you and the world, let the inside interact with the outside completely freely, indifferently, without judgement or fear, so inside and outside can become totally interchangeable. Submit to the flow, become the flow. Maybe you'll realize that the world and you are the same essence.

I don't know if "psy" is dying or not, but complaining about the way a forum "ticks" is about the most pointless thing one can do, in my opinion. Nobody goes around on the street telling people "man, psy is dying, you need to do something about that, do more about that, spread the word about psy!", but in reality starting a thread like this is not much different from that. People do what they feel like doing on the internet and I doubt anyone comes here with the mindset "I need to keep psy alive, I need to get some (however fashioned) discussion on psynews going" just like the random guy on the street. The "psy"-glass may be as half-empty here as anywhere but at least it's rather half-full than completely empty and that's thanks to the people who are active and participate in whatever way suits their needs and fancies. Sure, complain that the glass could be a little more filled than just to the half, but "psy dies because of you" is completely missing the point, which is already moot all by itself anyway.

You're welcome. =) I think I know what you mean and I understand you perceive her to have a nice body and personality, but the fact that she visually seems a bit invisible to you has probably nothing to do with her independently of you (the molecules making up her body most probably reflect just as much light as those of other people and she doesn't seem to be that thin! ), it's just your way of seeing her at the moment. But I think this isn't very important to discuss, anyway. I wouldn't attribute any meaning to this. What's important is how she acts towards you and what she says to you. Anything you hear about her from other people may be more or less true but is probably mostly completely meaningless for you and her. In this particular case, maybe she just meant she isn't actively looking for a friend and the guy interpreted it as her preferring to stay single, or she just said it because at the moment there was nobody there she would contemplate having a relationship with... third party information like this is really not actual information at all, unless it comes from someone you really trust (also their ability to remember things) and can ask very precise questions as to the circumstances, context and actual wording of what was said... These are the kind of things I would not try to do. And if I did I would not try to make it look like it wasn't on purpose. In my opinion it can be good to "do" ambigous things, or rather, "let them happen" when the situation goes in this direction by itself, things which hint at the possibilty that there's more to them than they by themself appear to be, but that's the good thing about them: they can be interpreted as people see fit and open room for interpretation/imagination without any pushing or pressure, as long as it isn't overdone and signs that it isn't welcome aren't ignored, but I would not try to steer situations in this direction, much less make it look like it was by accident/not purposely. I'm not trying to tell you what is right or wrong, this is mostly really just my approach to this kind of "game". In general I think it's important that you don't act as if your "relationship" with her (even if you hardly know someone, are not yet friends, much less romantic partners, that's already some kind of "loose" relationship) for you is just about you and your ideas, desires and plans. I think you will learn much more about her if you "do less" and give her more possibilities to act and define the parameters of your contact, which are always subject to change, anyway. This would maybe show her that you're interested in getting to know her (because by being more passive you give her the chance to be more active) and she might even be more intrested in getting to know you because of it. Just my 0,00002 bitcoins.

Not many active members in general, much less during weekends. You're welcome.

radi, I think it seems obvious you and her could become good friends, but there may be two important factors why the situation is the way it is, concerning a more romantic relationship. The first thing might be that she may be a humble person who likes to dress and style herself rather plain than fancy to reflect her character, she might be a bit introverted or at least not very extroverted and maybe she likes to take her time when getting to know people and take things slowly. Just like Scandinasia suggested, I also think she appears kind of a bit "invisible" to you because of her personality. But do not worry about this. Firstly, because I suspect that this is one of the things you like about her, that she's humble and non-fancy and secondly, because I know that clothing and styling can make a world of a difference when it comes to how I perceive people, which is probably especially true for girls and I'm pretty sure that's the way it is for most people, not just me. She may not be too much of a looker for you right now, but I think it's not unlikely that that's the case because that's the way she wants to be perceived and this could very easily change over time or quite suddenly, and most importantly: it's not necessary to be attracted to someones appearance to be attracted to them, I think you could easily become very attracted to her just by getting to know her better, and being attracted to someone because of their character primarily instead of their physical appearance is much more powerful and important than the other way around, also because it tends to alter ones visual perception of the other person very strongly as well. The second factor might be that she feels quite similar about you as you feel about her and your feelings and "non-feelings" may be mutual and reciprocal - one feels about the other this way more or less also because the other feels for one the same way. This can also change quite easily over time, mutually or not. Please note that most of what I wrote is pure speculation, because I hardly know you and even less do I know her, but maybe you can gain some meaningful inspirations from my words. As to what you should do... don't fret yourself over what you should or shouldn't do. It's enough if she knows that you're intrested in friendship or maybe even more and as long as you have a good time together, you'll most likely stay in contact and as time goes by get to know each other better anyway. If you do not have any other way to contact her than by seeing her at the institute it may be a good idea to exchange e-mail-adresses or cellphone numbers or both or whatever. This would be quite a clear sign to let her know you're interested in spending more time/staying in contact with her and it's good to have more than one channel by which to establish contact through in case one channel breaks suddenly and unexpectedly and generally it's better to be safe than sorry. I'd say just don't try to hurry things or steer matters in whatever directions... take your time to find out what you want, let her find out what she wants and most importantly have a good time while doing so.

Apparently you're referreing to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Extension-Woman-Ultimate-Yourself/dp/1475949448 Sounds similar to what "german new medicine" suggests: (http://learninggnm.com/documents/thirdlaw.html) "In the TEMPORAL LOBE (see diagram), in addition to laterality and gender (male or female), the hormone status, explicitly the estrogen and testosterone status, have to be taken into account. The hormonal status determines whether the conflict is experienced in a male or female manner, which in turn determines whether the conflict impacts on the right or left hemisphere of the temporal lobe. The right side of the temporal lobe is the "testosterone or male side", whereas the left side is the "estrogen or female side". If the hormone status changes as after menopause, or if the estrogen or testosterone level is suppressed through medication (contraceptives, estrogen or testosterone lowering drugs, or Chemo), the biological identity also changes. Hence, after menopause a female can suffer "male conflicts", which register on the right, "male", brain hemisphere, resulting in different physical symptoms than if she were pre-menopausal."

I think you got me wrong. I didn't mean to imply that your diet wasn't generally healthy. What I was trying to say is: The reason you benefit from those oils, containing omega3-acids, may be that your diet without the oils doesn't provide you with the optimal amount of omega3-acids. As I see it in our fantasy we can make everything bigger, better, harder, stronger indefinitely, but in the physical world there is some kind of optimum for everything. Once you reach the optimum it doesn't make sense to add/increase whatever (in this case intake of certain nutrients), because it won't bring any benefit or may well even be harmful. I meant "necessary" as in "necessary to meet the optimum", not "necessary to survive" or "necessary to survive reasonably well". Anyway, people have different bodies and different diets and deviate from the optimum in different ways. There may or may not statistically be a tendency for people to lack a good amount of omega3-acids in their diet without these oils and these people will probably have "weaker brains" without adding these oils to their diet and only compared to these "weaker brains" then do they have "stronger brains" when they do add the oils. Maybe I should put it this way: Unless you want to see the nutrients you take in to aid functioning of your brain as belonging to the brain itself, then you don't make your brain stronger or weaker by supplying or not supplying it with the nutrients it needs. You aid or hamper your bodies ability to provide the brain with the "fuel" it needs to function optimally, but I'd argue that you never make the brain itself "stronger" or "weaker", you're just hampering its functionality - or not - but you never "make the brain stronger". I guess that's what I wanted to say.

It seems to be the case that your body isn't supplied with enough of all the necessary nutrients by your usual diet and some of these oils appear to deliver some of the necessary nutrients, which you'd otherwise be lacking. They don't actually make your or other peoples brains stronger, rather they prevent that "brains" become weaker by fixing what would otherwise be a lack of certain nutrients in your body/our bodies and brain/brains. "braaaaaaiiiins...."

I know what you mean. In some way the percussion sounds off, the way it's set to the melody or even itself, but still, I bought Sinking Sand mainly for Track 1, because even though it sounds wrong, in a way for me it's a very interesting and impressive track, with a great intro/build up and very entrancing melody. Second favourite track is 7, Voice of God. Overall probably a weak album, but it has its few gems.

Basically, of course, yes. In the german language however, some confusion isn't hard to understand considering... http://dict.leo.org/#/search=innenarchitektur&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on

It's a very good (dare I say flawless) mix, one of those where I think "damn, someone made this mix, now I cannot make it anymore". Yes, I really like it, it's very trancey, kind of emphasizes the "trance" in "goa trance", so to say, but I really like that. In fact I'm going to listen to it for the second time right now. Also(!): in your soundcloud link, there is a "." at the beginning of the url and I think that's the reason the link isn't working for me. Nice work, mr., please proceed.

All time top 5 albums in no particular order, right now: Pleiadians - IFO Hallucinogen - Twisted Astral Projection - Dancing Galaxy Juno Reactor - Beyond the Infinite Juno Reactor - Bible of Dreams Fortunately all of these were released between 1994 and 1998, too. 10 Tracks? It would take me probably like half an hour to come to a conclusion , maybe I'll post 'em another time...

This album got _a lot_ of playtime on my mp3player the last several days. The tracks have very good flow and structure, oozing with energy and some very good melodies/twists. Favourites are "05 - Bio-Magnetic Tunnel Transport" (!!) and "08 - Constellations" (!) but everything else is very good, too. I like it slightly better than Colossus, which is very good, too (,too ).

They aren't necessarily synonymous. It's not about rationally understanding the creative process. It's more about an intuitive understanding - intuition is the requirement to create (have an idea), contrary to rationality, which we use to analyze (check if the idea is good). Yes one can. Even though goa/psy is more disharmonious than classical music, not as harmonically consistent/harder to grasp, so to say. A minute impact is still an impact, it's just harder to prove than a more substantial impact.

"Classical music makes you smarter" <- This sounds like a familiar statement in the context of the classical music played to babies in their mothers' wombs or infants/young children. Apparently the study takes this statement, removes the context (long-term effects), doesn't clarify the "new" context (short-term effects) and then "disproves" it. This is like just a stupid play on words and disgusting. Is it actually possible to disprove the classical-music-thing? I think one can make 100 studies and not find any indications that there's whatever correlation. But this wouldn't mean it could be called disproven to the point where there's no doubt that there is definitely no correlation at all, anyway. If nothing else, listening to classical music should make one more intelligent in the sense of enhancing ones ability to "compose classical music" or "recognize classical music". And I mean this in the way that one listens to the results of a creative and intellectual process, which brings one closer to that process itself compared to "not-listening". It should make one a better artist oneself, not only musically. If we assume that one is more likely to think certain thoughts in certain emotional states and music can create the various emotional states, then also brain areas which a certain person usually doesn't use as much might get activated, which could improve intelligence, too. Of course these are all very subtle changes, which may only increase over time (yet still stay very subtle) and probably cannot be found out about with those really crude experiments. Much of science probably happens only to get the funds for it - for the scientist(s) to be able to make a living. And, of course, one has to assume that the "scientific community" has its own set of taboos. Why does it sound silly to you?

My apartment looks very functional in mostly black, beige and brown with some silver/grey/chrome, red and glass. Maybe it has to do with the dirty-beige floor that already was in it when I moved in, before I put all my stuff inside and picked the kitchen design and furniture matching to the colour of that floor. Except for one blanket (medium sized brownish-orange with some olive green) all the walls are white without anything (pictures or other stuff hung to them) covering them. I actually love the way some super-cozy psychedelic 60s/70s rooms look like with their super-fluffy carpets and couches/beds etc., which invite one to just lie around and do nothing all day, but in my relatively small apartment I haven't even bothered to really try to imagine a way to combine super-cozy and very-functional in an effective way, yet. I'm still working on everything after over three years of living at this place, so maybe it's actually morphing into what I cannot imagine yet, but I'm just quite far away from real coziness still, right now. =)

For me it was the most memorable track of a mix a made many years ago, which didn't even exist anymore, other than in my head, so I tried to find out the track title. =)

maybe ? I was looking for this one myself, not too long ago and it took me a while to find it. =)

Nice thread topic! =) I especially like those two "New Aeon" vids. Can't add to this myself, unfortunately...