Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

The intensity a single "hard physicality" life experience is so much greater than the between lifetime "soft physicality" experiences. Each one is its own complete chapter in one's potentially never-ending storybook of their soul.
Indeed. Mainly agreeing with the idea of needing a break from reality.
 
The intensity a single "hard physicality" life experience is so much greater than the between lifetime "soft physicality" experiences. Each one is its own complete chapter in one's potentially never-ending storybook of their soul.
Wow - you seem to write in a compact statements like that, that could be usefully unpacked a bit. Are you taking that picture from Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls", or something else?

David
 
Wow - you seem to write in a compact statements like that, that could be usefully unpacked a bit. Are you taking that picture from Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls", or something else?

David
OK, since you asked. But the only way to explain this is if I present the full picture. This is all and only my "map of all" and perhaps better stated, "map of all known and all possibility." I should entitle it - "Map of All for Dummies" (me being the dummy).

I came up with the word combination of "hard physicality" versus "soft physicality" independently of Michael Newton and have intentionally stayed away from his work.

To understand my terms, I first must explain what I mean when I use the word "physicality." So to do that, I have to explain my "map of all." I create my "map of all" because I want to explore "it all" philosophically and speculatively when that "all" extends beyond this material realm. To do so I have to identify the essential components. So I start with that which is sometimes referred to as the Absolute and then I consider consciousness (as viewed by Bernardo Kastrup - ie. monistic idealism). It appears to me that within consciousness are individualized expressions of that consciousness such as you and I.

And it seems quite possible that my experience of myself as an individualized expression of consciousness does not necessarily have to end when I can no longer "touch my body" (when it dies) yet I was never able to "touch my mind" while alive suggesting "I" am not the body, perhaps "I" am only experiencing through a body. So my "map of all" incorporates the assumption "I" am not the body, "I" am an individualized expression of consciousness that has the opportunity to experience a world via that which appears to me to be a body. Since "I" am not primarily "physical" yet experience as an individualized expression of consciousness, I place "I" as anchored in "soft physicality" and the body I experience through is of the "hard physical" realm... yet "all" is within consciousness as a whole and fundamental medium.

That some of the stuff found in that world (hard physicality) is stuff found in the body, I conclude the body and that world are common to each other. I call this world, "hard physicality" in relation to what I cannot prove exists, which I only hope exists, a world beyond this world. And so, if that "beyond this world" world exists, where my sense of individuation is maintained, that greater world still appears to contain form or I could not sense "I" as "not others" as also perhaps "not what might appear in that other worldly world" which is not "I" or "others" be there such. Individualization is an aspect of form.

So there's two key properties shared by both hard and soft physicality. One (which has to be for the other to be) is form. and the other is the appearance of individualized expressions of consciousness.

And so how I express "it all" as "a map" is as follows:

Zone Zero - the Absolute (capitalized only to emphasize my respect for "It")

Zone One - consciousness (as a whole and fundamental to all the comes forth from within it - form, individualized expressions of consciousness)

Zone Two - physicality, within which is soft physicality and hard physicality.

Zone Three - hard physicality (that which some refer to as "the material realm)."

If one wishes to see this visually, (and I understand this is, regarding Zone 0, 1 and 2, either philosophical and/or speculative) imagine four circles where Zone 3 is the smallest and fits within a larger circle, Zone Two, which fits within a larger circle, Zone One, which fits within the largest Circle, Zone 0. The map is metaphorically representational only as you can't map the Absolute or consciousness as a whole.

It seems to me that those (like myself) who have become familiar with "things" like "the Absolute"... (essentially pure philosophy as we, anchored in Zone Three, considering all this in our "minds" (Zone Two), can only speculate philosophically when we strive to view it),... can, at best, sense "that which precedes awareness and has no other." And consciousness, as a whole, as foundational to "all" may never be "proven" from a Zone Three perspective either.

It seems to me that metaphysical, cosmological world views are, at best, assumptions. Yet regardless of whether or not one thinks they have to decide what may be true in this regard, its my strong opinion we all operate with one as our primary assumption, and in most cases, it seems folks do this without ever consciously considering it (much like Mark Gober describes was the case for himself prior to his listening to the Skeptiko episodes, by the way, and much the same for me). I think its a safe bet to say almost all the world operates from the assumption of materialism and within that group are a huge swath of folks who hold to something religious yet operate in that way "dualistically" thus creating a "two-world" view which has no hope in explaining how they could come to be (in the "hard physical" sense) in any sort of connected way but worse (and again, only my opinion), sets up irreconcilable conflict. This, to me, explains the state of the world today.

Everything I wrote above is simply meant to describe my map and there''s zero intention to impose it on another or to impose any of its components. But to be able to properly describe what I mean when I use the terms "hard physicality" and "soft physicality" I am compelled to share the full map and not just Zone Two (soft) and Zone Three (hard), the two zones of form/individualization within consciousness as a fundamental whole.
 
OK, since you asked. But the only way to explain this is if I present the full picture. This is all and only my "map of all" and perhaps better stated, "map of all known and all possibility." I should entitle it - "Map of All for Dummies" (me being the dummy).

I came up with the word combination of "hard physicality" versus "soft physicality" independently of Michael Newton and have intentionally stayed away from his work.

To understand my terms, I first must explain what I mean when I use the word "physicality." So to do that, I have to explain my "map of all." I create my "map of all" because I want to explore "it all" philosophically and speculatively when that "all" extends beyond this material realm. To do so I have to identify the essential components. So I start with that which is sometimes referred to as the Absolute and then I consider consciousness (as viewed by Bernardo Kastrup - ie. monistic idealism). It appears to me that within consciousness are individualized expressions of that consciousness such as you and I.

And it seems quite possible that my experience of myself as an individualized expression of consciousness does not necessarily have to end when I can no longer "touch my body" (when it dies) yet I was never able to "touch my mind" while alive suggesting "I" am not the body, perhaps "I" am only experiencing through a body. So my "map of all" incorporates the assumption "I" am not the body, "I" am an individualized expression of consciousness that has the opportunity to experience a world via that which appears to me to be a body. Since "I" am not primarily "physical" yet experience as an individualized expression of consciousness, I place "I" as anchored in "soft physicality" and the body I experience through is of the "hard physical" realm... yet "all" is within consciousness as a whole and fundamental medium.

That some of the stuff found in that world (hard physicality) is stuff found in the body, I conclude the body and that world are common to each other. I call this world, "hard physicality" in relation to what I cannot prove exists, which I only hope exists, a world beyond this world. And so, if that "beyond this world" world exists, where my sense of individuation is maintained, that greater world still appears to contain form or I could not sense "I" as "not others" as also perhaps "not what might appear in that other worldly world" which is not "I" or "others" be there such. Individualization is an aspect of form.

So there's two key properties shared by both hard and soft physicality. One (which has to be for the other to be) is form. and the other is the appearance of individualized expressions of consciousness.

And so how I express "it all" as "a map" is as follows:

Zone Zero - the Absolute (capitalized only to emphasize my respect for "It")

Zone One - consciousness (as a whole and fundamental to all the comes forth from within it - form, individualized expressions of consciousness)

Zone Two - physicality, within which is soft physicality and hard physicality.

Zone Three - hard physicality (that which some refer to as "the material realm)."

If one wishes to see this visually, (and I understand this is, regarding Zone 0, 1 and 2, either philosophical and/or speculative) imagine four circles where Zone 3 is the smallest and fits within a larger circle, Zone Two, which fits within a larger circle, Zone One, which fits within the largest Circle, Zone 0. The map is metaphorically representational only as you can't map the Absolute or consciousness as a whole.

It seems to me that those (like myself) who have become familiar with "things" like "the Absolute"... (essentially pure philosophy as we, anchored in Zone Three, considering all this in our "minds" (Zone Two), can only speculate philosophically when we strive to view it),... can, at best, sense "that which precedes awareness and has no other." And consciousness, as a whole, as foundational to "all" may never be "proven" from a Zone Three perspective either.

It seems to me that metaphysical, cosmological world views are, at best, assumptions. Yet regardless of whether or not one thinks they have to decide what may be true in this regard, its my strong opinion we all operate with one as our primary assumption, and in most cases, it seems folks do this without ever consciously considering it (much like Mark Gober describes was the case for himself prior to his listening to the Skeptiko episodes, by the way, and much the same for me). I think its a safe bet to say almost all the world operates from the assumption of materialism and within that group are a huge swath of folks who hold to something religious yet operate in that way "dualistically" thus creating a "two-world" view which has no hope in explaining how they could come to be (in the "hard physical" sense) in any sort of connected way but worse (and again, only my opinion), sets up irreconcilable conflict. This, to me, explains the state of the world today.

Everything I wrote above is simply meant to describe my map and there''s zero intention to impose it on another or to impose any of its components. But to be able to properly describe what I mean when I use the terms "hard physicality" and "soft physicality" I am compelled to share the full map and not just Zone Two (soft) and Zone Three (hard), the two zones of form/individualization within consciousness as a fundamental whole.
thx for this Sam. I really like the way you've broken this down. it kinda forces my/your hand re the diff zones... i.e. we're drops of water in the ocean, but also waves and foam... or maybe we're just ocean :)
 
thx for this Sam. I really like the way you've broken this down. it kinda forces my/your hand re the diff zones... i.e. we're drops of water in the ocean, but also waves and foam... or maybe we're just ocean :)
Or, as our old friend, Tim Freke, used to suggest... maybe we are both/and! (Thus in this case, all three)

And in fact, Tim was the one who inspired me to consider that realm between, "Big ME" and "Sam Hunter and his one life story..." (Tim's paralogical perception approach). I simply added in between these two a third "zone." In fact, I wrote him an e-mail about that in 2014 and called it "trilogical perception" featuring this thing many call, the soul. I got a reply back from Debbie that he was busy with his new work. Interestingly his next book turned out to be, "Soul Story." I was excited he saw the same thing as I saw... a need to consider "soul."

But what was so incredibly mind blowing is where he went with all that. In fact, he went from Idealism to... to some sort of weird materialism where each of us "grow a soul" if we somehow pass some magical line of self awareness / goodness / not really sure what elseness... He always starts eveything with "the Big Bang" and avoids dealing with that which was prior.

I am still scratching my head as to "what happened to Tim Freke." Yet I always honor him for his work as it played a critical role in my life between 2005 and when I stopped following his work, about a year or so ago.

Anyways, the wonderful thing about the three zone view is that I look at problems from all three POVs and then act (or take the action of not acting) based on that which I feel is perhaps for the best for all, striving to place "my Zone 3 physical self" and my "Zone Two perception of Self (soul)" second to others. By no means have I become some saint, but considering when I was young I was quite selfish and quite disturbed... I find myself making more and more decisions from the viewpoint of soul (be there such), which is all and only Zone 2.

And again, if there isn't any Zone 2... for me, none of this matters anyways.
 
...He always starts eveything with "the Big Bang" and avoids dealing with that which was prior.

I am still scratching my head as to "what happened to Tim Freke." Yet I always honor him for his work as it played a critical role in my life between 2005 and when I stopped following his work, about a year or so ago.
beautifully said :) I've tried to grow in this area... having the ability to deeply honor the beautiful parts of someone's path while maintaining the clarity to see the potholes.
 
Listened to the Marisa Ryan interview then the Claire Broad interview tonight upon joining this site. Very satisfied that I've found a place that provides quality content on this subject at least, and I expect more as I browse through the podcasts.

Science is about owning knowledge, and that's knowledge that is verifiable by anyone capable of following the methods described by the original researcher. I don't think we can own spirit. The reason I'm here now is that I recently figured out what most religions do that I am at odds with, and that is trying to own spirit. Our root program as living beings is to own so that we can live. People own via technology and have successfully overpopulated the world with this. No surprise then that we think we can own spirit. I can experience spirit but I can't own it. I've had paranormal experiences and I guess Ms. Broad is talking about accepting them as real when she says she owns them, so I can agree with that. A quest to update my spiritual experience brought me here and I'm getting a great update of the last time I checked in on the subject, about twenty years ago with the Institute of Noetic Sciences. There was a local IONS group that met monthly but it seemed to devolve and I left when someone came in with obviously photo-shopped depictions of 'fairies'. Before that it was a pretty good first look into these things.

Maybe science can at least pay attention to how many times a distressed person has gone to the police, asked them to contact a medium, and the medium delivered. But I'm kind of getting the impression from the two shows I listened to (and several Psychic Investigators shows watched on YouTube) that although this happens often enough to provide data (reliable mediums), there is no protocol in place in police departments so police use the info, solve cases but tell everyone it never happened. Like NDE study, we can compile and describe these instances at least and then begin to come up with something testable or move more in that direction. Can't say where the line is for that which is beyond knowing, or whether we can move the line.
 
Listened to the Marisa Ryan interview then the Claire Broad interview tonight upon joining this site. Very satisfied that I've found a place that provides quality content on this subject at least, and I expect more as I browse through the podcasts.

Science is about owning knowledge, and that's knowledge that is verifiable by anyone capable of following the methods described by the original researcher. I don't think we can own spirit. The reason I'm here now is that I recently figured out what most religions do that I am at odds with, and that is trying to own spirit. Our root program as living beings is to own so that we can live. People own via technology and have successfully overpopulated the world with this. No surprise then that we think we can own spirit. I can experience spirit but I can't own it. I've had paranormal experiences and I guess Ms. Broad is talking about accepting them as real when she says she owns them, so I can agree with that. A quest to update my spiritual experience brought me here and I'm getting a great update of the last time I checked in on the subject, about twenty years ago with the Institute of Noetic Sciences. There was a local IONS group that met monthly but it seemed to devolve and I left when someone came in with obviously photo-shopped depictions of 'fairies'. Before that it was a pretty good first look into these things.

Maybe science can at least pay attention to how many times a distressed person has gone to the police, asked them to contact a medium, and the medium delivered. But I'm kind of getting the impression from the two shows I listened to (and several Psychic Investigators shows watched on YouTube) that although this happens often enough to provide data (reliable mediums), there is no protocol in place in police departments so police use the info, solve cases but tell everyone it never happened. Like NDE study, we can compile and describe these instances at least and then begin to come up with something testable or move more in that direction. Can't say where the line is for that which is beyond knowing, or whether we can move the line.
Welcome Ben!
 
how many times a distressed person has gone to the police, asked them to contact a medium, and the medium delivered. But I'm kind of getting the impression from the two shows I listened to (and several Psychic Investigators shows watched on YouTube) that although this happens often enough to provide data (reliable mediums), there is no protocol in place in police departments so police use the info, solve cases but tell everyone it never happened.
welcome. Great point... very unfortunate situation. if you're new to the show and interested in this you might enjoy:
Ben Radford Debunks Psychic Detective | Skeptical ... - Skeptiko
Science Journalist Ben Radford "Believes" Psychic ... - Skeptiko
 
Top