Is this book notable or noxious? Read my review and get the inside dope

Cyclomancy: The Secret of Psychic Power Control

Author(s)
Frank Rudolph Young
Publisher
Parker Publishing Co., West Nyack NY
Edition / Year
1st. 1966
File under:
occult powers invented terminology Excessive Use Of Capitalization
In the section labelled
Ooh, Spooky

Cyclomancy: The Secret of Psychic Power Control

Power. Deep down, isn't that what we all want? Power over others, power to induce them to do our bidding, power to get what we want when we want it. Even better, psychic power, so one can control people with the mind, without resistance or resentment. (Just what I want for my birthday, in case you were wondering.) That is the promise of this book.

Its author, Frank Rudolph Young, says he is a master of yoga: whatever the truth of that claim it is apparent he is not a master of understatement. The blurb on the rear cover tells us, for example, that this book will demonstrate:

  • ... how you fascinate others with your thoughts, entrance them with your grace of movement, increase your muscle power up to 10 times with your mind alone, arouse intense desire in the opposite sex by your mere presence...

  • Because Cyclomancy is magic you may achieve any result you desire with it...

  • HOW TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHOUT TOUCHING THEM!

  • HOW TO SEE UP CLOSE FROM A DISTANCE OF TWO THOUSAND MILES!

  • HOW YOU MAY ACQUIRE AND USE X RAY VISION!

  • MATERIALIZING OBJECTS OUT OF THIN AIR!

  • HOW TO REDUCE AND STAY SLIM WITHOUT STARVATION!

Personally, if I could “arouse intense desire in the opposite sex by [my] mere presence” I wouldn't worry about my waistline. That aside, Cyclomancy is so impressive in its scope that some might be sceptical about the reality of Young's claims, but he sets all such doubts aside by presenting some impeccable credentials:

Frank Rudolph Young's granduncle was a long-lived Yogi in far-away India. For 40 years, Mr Young's father investigated the secrets of psychic power in the West Indies and in Central and South America. Mr. Young himself spent 30 years investigating the scientific laws behind Cyclomancy. Since 1955 he has taught these findings to thousands of followers throughout the world.

There you are then. Grand-nephew of a “Yogi in far-away India” (India, Tennessee, I'm guessing) and son of a psychic investigator. It must all be true, surely.

Sometimes promises made on the exterior of a book are belied by its content, having been composed by some unscrupulous hack rather than its author. However in this case the tone of wild overstatement is continued throughout, and in fact the content of the book is even more insane than its blurb suggests. The following short extract comes from a chapter titled, wonderfully, How to Use the Astounding Power of Your Brain Horns and Put It Under Psychic Power Control:

Exercise 1. How To Tranquilize Highly Wrought-Up People with Infrared Ray Projections. Vince Laplante has suffered serious blows through poor investments, business reverses or a shocking discovery about the state of his health. The moment you lay eyes on him, use the Psychic Arc to bring twice the amount of heat to your body surface. Think of the juicy steak to warm up your skin, then draw this heat quickly from all over you and pack it into two narrow, short hot rods in your Brain Horns so that they actually burn your eyes a little. Deliver, now, a psychic command rocket behind the hot rods, with the following command, “Vince, you'll win out! Just be a little patient! You'll win out!” (That prevents your conscious mind from analyzing the advice and reasoning whether it is realistic or not. Just forget your logic and let your psychic power command straight to behind the hot rods, carrying with it all its confident power).

I doubt that the idea of thinking about a “juicy steak” in order to warm oneself up is part of conventional Yogic teaching, which is strictly vegetarian, but to be able to send infra red rays from one's eyes would certainly be useful, especially when the TV remote has disappeared down the back of the sofa. (“Just forget your logic”, indeed.) And as proof that Young's weird way with imagery is not confined to confusing references to “hot rods”, here's another even more bizarre example:

Exercise. How to Establish Mutual Rapport Fast Between You and Anyone. You run into Martin on the street, in the office, at a social gathering, in your house, or his, the golf course or anywhere else. Instantly visualize his torso, from head to thighs, as secreting within it a profusion of acetylcholine at every Nerve Gap. Or you can just visualize his torso and at the same time think strongly of a juicy steak or of something else that you relish eating. Maintain that thought or vision clearly for two seconds.

This mental picture will automatically be telepathized into Martin's mind. It will be a picture of a painless torso, for acetylcholine is secreted by your loving nerves, and those are nerves of pleasure, not pain.

Martin's conscious mind will subsequently ignore any pain sensations from his Sensations Recording Center which originated in his torso or which are caused by it reflexly, like a stomach headache. So he feels better immediately and subconsciously associates you with that feeling. He is left eager to meet you or associate with again. You have created mutual rapport between you two ... fast.

To encourage people to fantasise about the torsos of those they meet, bathed in secretions, seems frankly dangerous. I've seen American Beauty, you know. “Mutual rapport” may not be exactly what you create ... fast.

To write like this, one must have a very warped sense of humour, or none. To help you decide, here's some more of Young's strange advice:

If you visit ill and crabby Teddy, improve his frame of mind with the tender touch.

When you go to bed, do the Zembla to retard old age.

When you lie there, win back a vacillating romantic partner, or wife or husband, with the Psychic Antidrom.

Arouse your marital partner incredibly with the Human Lamp.

And, oh yes, “make all these attainments permanent with the Psychic Mold”. (Maybe later, when my Brain Horns are rested. Gosh, I've overdone the Zembla again.)

Leave a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Comments

Submitted by DG (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 - 20:55 Permalink
That was entertaining. I almost forgot why I visited this site. Like anything out of the ordinary, especially when it comes to the matters of the mind, people are going to be skeptical. Just like there are people that believe in ghosts and people who think it's a bunch of crap. I never had the choice to "believe" or not to "believe" in the supernatural/ghosts because I have been experiencing them as far back as I remember. It use to scare me like nothing else, sometimes it still does. But this doesn't make me crazy, it is what it is. ** Now don't go crazy on me Alfred, the reason I am looking for books is because also can sense I have some psychic ability. The problem is, I don't know how to control it. It just pops in and out, sometimes extremely strong and other times a confusing mess. I'm trying to "learn" it. Anyone else out there trying to do the same?
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 01 Sep 2011 - 10:30 Permalink

DG, I am as you would expect, sceptical. But polite discussion of contrary views is welcomed. What I would ask you is how do you know that these experiences are supernatural? It is perfectly possible, I think, for sane people to experience hallucinations: how are you sure the occurrences you mention are not the creation of your own mind?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 10 Jul 2011 - 15:04 Permalink
Well, to burst your bubble Alfred, over 100 years ago, before your petty little government backed scientists came up with quantum THEORIES, and other molecular structure, string and whatever other theories they stole, there was a group/being by the name of "the three initiates" who detailed in a book called "The Kybalion" which enlisted 7 principles, that, everything is matter, everything vibrates in a certain rhythm at a certain frequency - these were as he claimed, esoteric teachings spawning back to Hermes Trismagistus of Egypt. (The 7 principles where, Principle of Mentalism Principle of Correspondence Principle of Vibration Principle of Polarity Principle of Rhythm Principle of Cause and Effect Principle of Gender Which through modern day science which you obviously entrust your undying ignorance and belligerence to, has confirmed ;) Furthermore to this petty arguement, the very "scientists" you believe in, back by the very governments that thrusted $100,000,000s into psychic research facilities both America, and Russia(KGB). It just seems for every discovery of ancient knowledge or "mystical power" we have ignorant fools to condemn and try to debunk it, although their philosophies are based upon its teachings, had they the sense to invest where these theories came from rather than stand by those theories like ardent fools then they'd realise "the truth is out there" in all fairness, do you think a scientist, who spends decades building credibility and a career in what they do would "risk" it on these "conspiratorial" ventures?! would you "throw away" your careers?! look what happened to the likes of David Icke when he first came out, he went from overnight star to overnight "joke" - and thats because of the small minded society which we live in, some people are so anal retentive its shocking
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 10 Jul 2011 - 15:40 Permalink

There's a huge difference between saying, vaguely "everything is vibration" and making specific, exact predictions based on observation that eventually lead to new technologies. The computer you are using to convey your opinions was created through the application of the very scientific discoveries you pooh-pooh.  Do something comparable by magic, and we might be impressed.

If Cyclomancy is powerful, go on, show its power. Otherwise you will continue to resemble a flatulent windbag.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 08 Jul 2011 - 19:21 Permalink
@Rob and Alfred *Yawn*
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 08 Jul 2011 - 19:51 Permalink

Every time you open that gob, I can smell your Dominant Psychic Atmosphere. You sure you aren't practising the Parisian Halitotic Attack?

Not really a compelling example of the value of Cyclomancy, are you? "Fascinate others with your thoughts"? It's not working for me, mate.

Still I bet you make up for it with a pretty face.

Submitted by Rob (not verified) on 07 Jul 2011 - 12:59 Permalink
Dear Anonymous, you seem to be a real genius and should consider a career at a university. You've taught me things about quantum physics that I'd never heard of – and I am a physicist, though, admittedly, not a very quantum one. As to your list of names of people claiming nonsense: William Tiller: Retired („emeritus“) professor of Materials Science and Engineering, makes money with the selling of books and DVDs where he claims that there are strange forces the existence of which he has failed to prove for the last 30 years. John Hagelin: Indeed a real physicist who has done some real and actually quite good work in physics but has some rather wierd beliefs which he has tried to prove with not very good methods. For instance he once put a few thousand meditating people in Washington, D.C. for a few weeks and claimed afterwards that that had lowered the rate of „violent“ crime by 18% - compared to what it (according to him) would have been without them. His calculations of the level of crime without Hippies lost in time included factors like the magnetic field of the earth... Sounds really convincing. In reality the frequency of some types of crime went down and that of others went up, without anything exceeding normal fluctuations. Apart from where the thousands of weirdos met, of course. No one would dare to mug someone in front of such a crowd. Fred Alan Wolf: Real physicist with some borderline ideas and some that are clearly beyond any border (mind and matter stuff), haven't heard too much about him, seen a few interviews where he talked a lot wihout actually telling anything. It's all „some force“, „some kind of plan that we can see in hindsight“, without any specific explanation of what he means. And lots of oversimplifications that make even the really existing parts of his claims rather bullshitty. Nick Herbert: Again a real physicist (though about as quantum as me) with some real experience and some weird ideas that were helped along with psychedelic substances. Obviously he has failed to prove any of them. So what I'm trying to say is: Yes, there are some people with a scientific degree claiming things that contradict science. Some of them do that because they can make more money that way, using their education as a shield against disbelieving people and complicated terms in order to confuse the layman, and some actually believe their own claims and do what every good believer does: Shut off their brains capability of recognizing illogicality when it comes to religion. None of them have anything aproaching a proof for their claims. And one more thing: The old „scientist x in the old days of y was persecuted for his believes, too!“ is not valid any more. In the „old days“ there was practically no science at all because religion was very mighty and science and education are the worst thing that can happen to any religion. Scientists weren't prosecuted by other scientists, but by the churches and other establishments relying on gullibility. Today every scientist would give his right foot, left hand and all of his hair for being able to prove one of the established theories wrong. But in order to be taken seriously you have to bring forth an explanation of some effect that until now couldn't be explained wihtout contradicting all the other effects that can be observed. What the people you listed did is just claiming the existence of effects that have never been observed, which is religion, not science. Yours, Rob. PS: Please excuse the long text. Was bored.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Jul 2011 - 05:09 Permalink
Yes, "Phil YH" "Yet again, it seems to cause something I might able to handle well. I will have to pass on this one." I'll assume English is your seventh language, because if you proffer that you can ""handle (it) well" yet "will have to pass", either: 1. You failed the "English Comprehension and Expression" course you took at the local junior college. or 2. You are just another lemming/jackass who is too dumb/lazy/intellectually stunted to take time to research viable contrasting research by credible researchers and fall back to kissing Alfred's butt (which is saddest of all) to get your "approval pellet".
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Jul 2011 - 01:10 Permalink
"Simply claiming that quantum physics, which I actually have read quite a lot about - though I wouldn't dare say I am anything other than an interested layman - supports Young, isn't any sort of argument. Evidence, that's what we want." Which is the exact ad-hominem passive-aggressive, lazy, non-response copout answer I expected from someone (you Alfred) who knows virtually nothing (your "interested layman") about the subject, but who is handy at acidic ("you can't prove God exists"), yet intellectually vacant responses. Who "believes it" Alfred? You want "examples"? Lookup William Tiller - Stanford PhD - Prof Emeritus Lookup John Hagelin - PhD - Dartmouth Und. - MIT/Harvard Masters/PhD Lookup Fred Alan Wolf - PhD UCLA - Nat'l Book award - Univ London, Univ Paris etc Lookup Nick Herbert PhD - Stanford Can go on and on. So let me pre-empt any more continued ignorance - I mean "skepticism" on your part: If you want to make "arguments" as if no one of "substance" and "science" believes in the powers of the mind to alter matter and reality you'd be well served to do some cursory research before spouting off to denigrate something and winding up looking like an even more ignorant jackass. Not everyone that passes through the net (particularly YOUR site) is a malleable, uninformed, lemming/idiot/goofball that can be browbeaten into a compliant view Alfred. Why not expand that brain, of which you're so in love with demonstrating the prowess, and attempt to understand something that you have mistakenly dismissed as foolish? As the bible says (1 Corinthians 1:27): "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise". You're being very wise at this point Alfred. BTW - Go Copernicus! (PS. Alfred - Van Gogh's artwork never made any money until after he was dead. We also see how THAT turned out; don't we?)
Submitted by whatthebleephead (not verified) on 07 Jul 2011 - 07:17 Permalink
asking for evidence is an ad-hominem? I can only guess that you were holding back the "evidecne" (your not the only one who can use scare quotes) and waiting for someone to ask for it so you can call them passive aggressive and lazy. You write a lot and say very little, you still didn't provide the evidence that these celebrities claim to have found that proves the possibility of mind over matter. Who is disputing E=mc2 though and who thought copernicus a kook? that was your most specious claim
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 07 Jul 2011 - 10:52 Permalink

Some scientists believe in God while others are atheists, so the formula that Professor X says Y is worthless.

 

As the delightfully-named whatthebleephead says, dropping a lot of names without citing specific papers or other publications does not move the argument on. If you know what these no doubt fine chaps said, then don't hold back: show us.

But we'll want to see specific evidence in support of what Young actually says, since even if these people do believe in mind over matter in some sense, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that Young's book has any substance either. Young makes many extraordinary claims, the bulk of which would need to be supported if he isn't to be seen as an exaggerator at best.

By the way, you are a dickhead. (I just wanted to make an ad hominem attack so you know what it is for next time.)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 06 Jul 2011 - 02:58 Permalink
Alfred, Normally I wouldn't bother to comment on world viewpoints that are as obviously asinine as yours typically are, but for some reason I felt compelled to do so this time. If you think that there are no people out in the world with advanced psychic powers you are delusional - and at best unrealistic. There are several things that stand out: You are woefully ignorant of physics beyond the Newtonian model. Prominent physicists from MIT, Stanford and Oxford (as well as other "prominent" institutions of higher knowledge) have soundly declared that what they have learned in the last 10 about Quantum physics has virtually debunked Einstien's E=MC2 theory of light and relativity. I'm not one to call people out, but you may seem intelligent to the "pitchfork and torch" level-of-knowledge-about-advanced-physics folks that typically post on this board, but to anyone who has any true depth of knowledge about the subject knows that the power of psychokinesis defies the limits that were previously believed about space, time and matter. You have demonstrated that you have obviously: - Not read the book in full with comparative exposure to advanced quantum mechanics - Know next to nothing about current quantum physics studies - Are fairly (very) close-minded You appear to not have the capacity to understand anything you are not approved to think as dictated by public education standards. However, you do possess the ability to sound rational and intelligent to people who do not know any better. I would think that someone as "intelligent" as you obviously like to believe that you are, would have enough intellectual curiosity to have run into (and actually read) at least one white paper from at least one credible modern physicist that substantiates Mr. Young's information. In other words, you are a blowhard (and I do mean hard) who thinks that he knows more than he actually does - and patently refuses to attempt to find out more. That is the definition of an "arrogant fool". For those of you who choose to actually READ Mr. Young's book before dismissing it, don't be dissuaded by the ignorant blowhards on this board. Its for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. P.S. People thought Copernicus was a kook too. Look how that turned out.
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 06 Jul 2011 - 10:30 Permalink

I would think that someone as "intelligent" as you obviously like to believe that you are, would have enough intellectual curiosity to have run into (and actually read) at least one white paper from at least one credible modern physicist that substantiates Mr. Young's information.

Go on, then, name one. Bet you can't. Simply claiming that quantum physics, which I actually have read quite a lot about - though I wouldn't dare say I am anything other than an interested layman - supports Young, isn't any sort of argument. Evidence, that's what we want. There certainly isn't any in the book. Painting me as a reactionary trying to hold back the advanced forces of science led by yourself and Young is a particularly idiotic notion.

You don't appear to know the difference between bluster and argument, so I am not expecting much.

If Young is the Copernicus of a new science, I am Vincent Van Gogh.

Submitted by Jon1 (not verified) on 09 May 2011 - 22:16 Permalink
Heavy 60s language (purple prose) but lots of useful info. Expensive copies on Amazon.
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 09 May 2011 - 23:20 Permalink

Useful info? If you like pretentious forms of mental training, why not buy a book on NLP instead? Cheaper, and just as good. The gobbledygook won't be quite as overblown, but you can still get your fix of variably worthwhile advice dressed up with pseudoscientific drivel.

All comments