Debra Diamond Brings Wall Street Smarts to NDEs, and Mediumship |424|

#21
I liked this interview and the topic. Good questions from Alex. Debra was very cautious in her answers, which is a double edged sword. I appreciate her humility and cautiousness, but found myself wishing at a few points that she'd go out on a speculative limb once in a while. Definitely a guest I hope that returns for more.
Yes, too much caution can be a bad thing - imagine how limited our discussions would be if we followed that approach - indeed even physicists need to speculate.

Some people veer the other extreme, and come out with endless speculation until you end up not knowing what what they believe.
Re; the inconsistencies - IMO, too many people want the spirit world to be mechanistic and to behave like material physics, but mind doesn't work that way. Mind creates realities. It is largely free from mechanistic determinism.

So, IMO, in the spirit world there are "cultures"; i.e. groups of spirits that have banded together and that create separate realities and systems. Some of these cultures reincarnate for various reasons. In other cultures, reincarnation isn't an option. They handle things differently.
This is something I am inclined to believe, though it does mean that 'up there' isn't quite as pure as it might like to appear.
In the work that has come out of the University of Virginia we can see that most of the cases suggestive of reincarnation, there was a traumatic and/or untimely death. Perhaps those souls tend to band together in a group that has explored the ability to return to earth in a new body, whereas people lived out their life's natural span tend to band together in groups/cultures that are focused on other avenues of growth/adventure/issue resolution.
That is an interesting idea, though it would need refining a bit, otherwise after a war or natural disaster there should be large numbers of such cases. Of course, it would probably need more research to gather enough data to resolve things like that.

Alex, I know you are interested in this question too, and I wonder if you couldn't get a trusted medium to join the forum, and we could discuss with her (or him) just what experiments might be possible. For example:

1) How easy would it be for her to detect if someone had had a previous life?

2) Would it be possible to detect when a foetus acquires a spirit?

3) Could a medium recognise a spirit that she used to know, after it had reincarnated as someone else?

4) Maybe a medium could explicitly ask a contact about other cultures?

Could we make such experiments rigorous? Maybe Julie Beischel would be a useful guest (but I can't remember if she herself has abilities as a medium).

David
 
#22
hx. this is a topic I'm going to be returning to because I've already asked a couple of guests since this interview. the responses are interesting... it appears that the spiritualist / medium, belief system / dogma has traditionally steered away from reincarnation. this seems to me to be a blind spot. I mean, the data we have from stevenson and tucker certainly are highly suggestive of the reality of reincarnation. it's strange to think that mediums could be could fall prey to this kind of dogmatic thinking. and why don't the spirits set them straight?
Hey Alex

I am with Debra here, in terms of her sense to leave reincarnation alone. Its fine playing with the religious beliefs on the subject in general chat, and we can handle the ardent believers who all claim to have been Cleopatra, or whomever. We are barely at the stage of accepting that we endure in a non-physical post mortem state. Let's get that under our belts and then we can start to look at what happens next.

There are hints to be found - Robert Monroe's Far Journeys was particularly interesting to me. Others say that past and future lives are concurrent on the metaphysical plane. It doesn't take long before we are obliged to imagine a vast network of intersecting lives across the whole galaxy (at least).

I think its fair to say that reincarnation is an idea that is pretty crude in our hands, but it belongs to yet another complex and elegant dimension to our potential understanding of who and what we are.

I have found that 'spirits' of the higher order are disinclined to set us straight about things they see we are not ready to work with. I have been flat out refused answers to questions posed and when I have asked why the answer is always the same: You are not ready for this.

We aren't over the exit stage yet - voluntary or involuntary - temporary or final (for now).
 
#23
Alex, at the end of the show you posed a question (which you really must write down so we can reference it in the forum). I was in the supermarket at the time, so what I recall may be off a few degrees.

You asked (words to the effect of): "How does this fit into our picture of extended consciousness? Shouldn't the pieces fit together easier?"

Let's take what we know about how the physical world works and go back a thousand years. If we try to build a picture of how the world works without the conceptual building blocks developed by scientists in the past 3 centuries- and access to microscopes and telescopes what we'd have is collections of bits of data held together by guesses, imagination, faith and intuition - all crafted into a narrative. That we 'get' as a picture, because we know now what was not known then. So it is for us now, if were humble enough to admit.

How to things piece together? Like lego blocks? Like jigsaw pieces? Like bubble in foam? Like weaving or knitting? Like cake batter? (quite) A few years back I had the habit of trying to make ideas go together with a kind of engineering mindset, and it didn't work. Then I read Tom Peters (one of the early management 'gurus'). Peters like to say that reality was sloppy and messy. I started to understand the truth of those words and came to see reality more like a bag of marshmallows than a box of lego bits.

And when you start to see reality as consciousness you allow that it is complex and relational in an organic kind of way - and not only linear and logical. That's what I liked about Debra - a blend of Virgoan linearity and messy intuition. Its how I think we are natively, but lots of have had the messy stuff beaten out of us or debased as worthless.

Sometimes things fit together like watercolours on wet paper - and that's good.
 

Alex

Administrator
#24
FYI, When I used to go to Spiritualist churches they said they have no official position on reincarnation because the data (from spirits not scientists) was conflicting, but individual Spiritualists may have their own beliefs. So mediums who come from a Spiritualist background might avoid the subject - especially if they are still active in the church. If there are independent mediums who also avoid the subject it would be interesting to ask them why.
thanks... Interesting... kind of a strange stance to take... actually raises more questions than answers :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#25
Alex, at the end of the show you posed a question (which you really must write down so we can reference it in the forum). I was in the supermarket at the time, so what I recall may be off a few degrees.

You asked (words to the effect of): "How does this fit into our picture of extended consciousness? Shouldn't the pieces fit together easier?"

Let's take what we know about how the physical world works and go back a thousand years. If we try to build a picture of how the world works without the conceptual building blocks developed by scientists in the past 3 centuries- and access to microscopes and telescopes what we'd have is collections of bits of data held together by guesses, imagination, faith and intuition - all crafted into a narrative. That we 'get' as a picture, because we know now what was not known then. So it is for us now, if were humble enough to admit.

How to things piece together? Like lego blocks? Like jigsaw pieces? Like bubble in foam? Like weaving or knitting? Like cake batter? (quite) A few years back I had the habit of trying to make ideas go together with a kind of engineering mindset, and it didn't work. Then I read Tom Peters (one of the early management 'gurus'). Peters like to say that reality was sloppy and messy. I started to understand the truth of those words and came to see reality more like a bag of marshmallows than a box of lego bits.

And when you start to see reality as consciousness you allow that it is complex and relational in an organic kind of way - and not only linear and logical. That's what I liked about Debra - a blend of Virgoan linearity and messy intuition. Its how I think we are natively, but lots of have had the messy stuff beaten out of us or debased as worthless.

Sometimes things fit together like watercolours on wet paper - and that's good.
nice. And I agree in general. It seems like we're looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope when we try and make it fit into our time space reality.
 

Alex

Administrator
#26
Yes, too much caution can be a bad thing - imagine how limited our discussions would be if we followed that approach - indeed even physicists need to speculate.

Some people veer the other extreme, and come out with endless speculation until you end up not knowing what what they believe.

This is something I am inclined to believe, though it does mean that 'up there' isn't quite as pure as it might like to appear.

That is an interesting idea, though it would need refining a bit, otherwise after a war or natural disaster there should be large numbers of such cases. Of course, it would probably need more research to gather enough data to resolve things like that.

Alex, I know you are interested in this question too, and I wonder if you couldn't get a trusted medium to join the forum, and we could discuss with her (or him) just what experiments might be possible. For example:

1) How easy would it be for her to detect if someone had had a previous life?

2) Would it be possible to detect when a foetus acquires a spirit?

3) Could a medium recognise a spirit that she used to know, after it had reincarnated as someone else?

4) Maybe a medium could explicitly ask a contact about other cultures?

Could we make such experiments rigorous? Maybe Julie Beischel would be a useful guest (but I can't remember if she herself has abilities as a medium).

David
I actually have a couple of interviews with mediums coming up :)
 
#28
I doubt that there is one answer that all of the NDE and STE experiencers can learn from their experience as to what is spirit world and what is the Universal agenda, who are we, why are we here, what is the meaning of life and the nature of reality.

As complicated as the nature of physical reality is on present day planet Earth, it is probably only a thin veneer on the higher vibration realities, which are even more complicated and varied.

If the current zeitgeist on Earth is that humans are a herd of animals managed for the harvesting of psychic energy by lower astral beings, then every report that comes back from a human being having an experience of that lower astral realm is probably manipulated either by the agents managing that system, or manipulated by poachers of that system, and only occasionally get communication by someone from an etheric group that wants to help humanity. That would explain the variety of reports coming back.

I like the summary analysis offered by Tom Montalk. I recently heard him again on the Cosmic Matrix podcast of Bernhard Gunther, who also has a cogent summary analysis of the nature of our reality.

Tom is an experiencer of alien abduction. Both Tom and Bernhard have good books and articles and YouTube videos on the subjects of consciousness, spirituality, and alien intrusion.

I would recommend that Alex bring either or both of these guys on to get their responses to some of the big questions he is asking.

http://montalk.net/about/46/about-the-author

https://veilofreality.com/about/
 
#29
That would mean that there's no BIG ULTIMATE HIERARCHY of spirits or spirit realms, just like there's not ultimate hierarchy controlling the evolution of biological organism in the theory of evolution.
Oh, I dunno about that. I think there has to be a Director. Otherwise, if let's say the big bang was a spontainous event (Which I doubt) then we would still be standing on a big rock in space. And most certainly, that sun up there would not have kept perpetually burning for millions and millions (billions?) of years. I'm quite convinced the conscious Planner is real, alive and well even if we are presently effing up Creation somewhat.
 
#30
Oh, I dunno about that. I think there has to be a Director. Otherwise, if let's say the big bang was a spontainous event (Which I doubt) then we would still be standing on a big rock in space. And most certainly, that sun up there would not have kept perpetually burning for millions and millions (billions?) of years. I'm quite convinced the conscious Planner is real, alive and well even if we are presently effing up Creation somewhat.
Thanks for the reply, garry. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about these interesting topics. Though I think we may have missed each other a bit.

I mentioned in my post that I'm not trying to say that anything I'm writing is THE WAY IT IS in an absolute sense--I'm just wanting to explore this metaphor because it feels like a useful pursuit to me.

So I'm not arguing that there is NO BIG ULTIMATE DIRECTOR. Maybe there is a Director or maybe there isn't. I don't know. I do think it's interesting to experiment with the idea that there isn't, just to see where that takes my mind. Like a thought experiment.

I think it's an interesting thought experiment to consider all thoughts to be thought experiments. That is, it may be useful to consider the idea that ideas themselves may be context-specific, can only ever be partial, and can never quite grasp Ultimate Truth (if there is such a thing).

There seems to be usefulness in spending less time and energy in fretting about whether ideas are "correct" and instead spending that time and energy considering how the ideas may be more or less useful than other ideas in any given context for any given purpose.

For example, I grew up in a specific Christian denomination that holds very specific theological doctrines. My family's involvement and faith in this denomination for many generations has shaped a lot of who I am as a person. All the time I spent at that church was and is useful and meaningful to me. Being a faithful member of this denomination continues to be useful and meaningful to many members of my family. And yet, I think the vast majority of their theological theories are not "correct".

It is interesting that "incorrect" theories can be so extremely useful and meaningful in a person's life. It's important for me to explore the notion that usefulness and meaningfulness do not equal "correctness".
 
#31
For example, in Darwinian evolution, it is thought that there's no ideal form that an organism is "evolving toward." Evolution is just thought to be based on accidental mutations that are selected for in terms of how any given mutation helps an organism survive and replicate. It seems like it may be useful to consider that perhaps human knowledge and culture evolves that way. Additionally, perhaps it is useful to consider that spirits or spirit realms evolve the same way. That would mean that there's no BIG ULTIMATE HIERARCHY of spirits or spirit realms, just like there's not ultimate hierarchy controlling the evolution of biological organism in the theory of evolution.
Strangely, I think the concept of evolution by natural selection (NS) might have more relevance at a spiritual level than it does at the level of DNA. The core of the problem is that DNA is an elaborate code for some extremely elaborate molecular structures inside our cells, so tweaking this by mutation is overwhelmingly destructive.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

Maybe in a realm of pure consciousness, ideas would evolve - rather as they do in life in general, but when ideas are everything.....

I am not really keen on the idea of an all-powerful God, partly because a god that is all-knowing and all-powerful, doesn't have goals, or intentions, he can just set things up exactly the way he wants! On earth we have leaders all over the place, but they are all obviously flawed - even President Trump - and their powers are very finite.

David
 
#32
Oh, I dunno about that. I think there has to be a Director. Otherwise, if let's say the big bang was a spontainous event (Which I doubt) then we would still be standing on a big rock in space. And most certainly, that sun up there would not have kept perpetually burning for millions and millions (billions?) of years.
I don't think many (any?) people here are supporting the idea of a purely physical reality (materialism). It seems to me that your argument only has any force against that alternative. However, imagine if in a conscious realm of equals, a group got together to design a physical realm - which we are living in right now.

Those beings were/are obviously pretty clever, but they don't need to have the qualities people normally attribute to God.

David
 
#34
Those beings were/are obviously pretty clever, but they don't need to have the qualities people normally attribute to God.
Maybe not, David. But if it was a group rather than a single Entity, their class was head and shoulders above that of humanity. Debra's interaction with the dead does not fully reveal, nor Allen Kardec's extensive Spirit study, from Them the Ultimate Truth. For us to consider it might all be a facade or hologram for our adventure and character progress, as some near death experiencers say, might be as good a shot at it as any.
 
#35
It is interesting that "incorrect" theories can be so extremely useful and meaningful in a person's life.
I agree Dan. You mentioned the influence of a certain religion on your life even though some of the particulars thereof you felt were questionable. I went through that too. but like you I found implementing the basics of its morality useful and moreover on rare occasions even miraculously helpful as I plodded through life.
 
#36
So I'm not arguing that there is NO BIG ULTIMATE DIRECTOR. Maybe there is a Director or maybe there isn't. I don't know. I do think it's interesting to experiment with the idea that there isn't, just to see where that takes my mind. Like a thought experiment.
Its probably worthwhile observing that the idea that there is a hierarchy of spiritual beings can be found globally. These are not hierarchies of authority so much of attainment, and hence vibration - so the more refined are acknowledged as 'superior'. Human efforts to replicate hierarchy create mimics of structure, but not the essence of the merit. This why we find moral dengenerates at the heads of Earthly organisations - governments, corporations, religions and the like. On Earth hierarchical status infers a degree of merit consistent with status, but the reality is that such is simply not the case.

Neither is it the case that dead folk are of a higher order than living folk. The hierarchy of spirit pertains regardless of whether one is wholly in spirit or also in physical form.

I get it that we are often speculating from ignorance in a good way. But its not like this stuff is new or unknown.
 
#37
David! Please. Let's not get carried away here. President Trump is an honest, respectful, law-abiding, swamp-draining pacifist. Flaws?! "Even" President Trump? Honestly. You might as well say that our risen Lord and Saviour has flaws. Now, wash your mouth out with soap.
I said that deliberately to show that I recognise that even someone I obviously admire, still has his flaws.

By electing him, the US people may have dodged an awful escalation of the Syrian war, that would have lead to countless deaths and even more people mutilated - possibly also a deadly war with Russia. He also seems to have triggered the draining of the Epstein swamp. Those two things alone are enough to treat the guy with respect, but that respect is not the same as the respect people give to a god whose qualities are supposed to be infinite.

David
 
#38
Maybe not, David. But if it was a group rather than a single Entity, their class was head and shoulders above that of humanity.
Clearly that is true, but my point is that so many people seem to want to try to fit the extremely murky realm beyond, into a very simple narrative involving God. Even while doing so, they contradict his supposed infinite qualities.

For example, if He can foresee everything, why does He need to test people on earth - he already knows the outcome. If he had infinite powers, why did he need to make the earth over a period of 4.5 billion years (or the universe over an even longer period) - why not just set it up in one go? My suspicion is that at that level, even very sophisticated beings have to work by trial and error.

Similarly I think the beings responsible for the earth, and us, may not act with totally pure motives, and may not all pull in the same direction. Just suspecting that, cuts through a lot of daft arguments trying to explain why God allowed floods or earthquakes, or congenital disease,......... Maybe the earth is only as good as 'they' could manage.

David
 
#39
I am not really keen on the idea of an all-powerful God, partly because a god that is all-knowing and all-powerful, doesn't have goals, or intentions, he can just set things up exactly the way he wants!
I am not sure, David, if you are aware of the contradictions in your statement. If your God can set up things the way he wants he then must have intent and goals.

Besides the very nature of the supreme creative agency of all that is must be based upon a will to be - the first intent. This primal creative agency is the only one capable of being all-powerful and all-knowing. The mystical formulation to express this state of being is 'I am that I am'. That which is at this level cannot have intent or purpose that is not wholly internal. What is is what this agency wants - so the fact that you are not keen on it is part of what is wanted.

An all-powerful and all-knowing God cannot be merely as petty or capricious as you fear. The lesser gods, who are not all-knowing or all-powerful, are more of a concern, because they will bend us to their will and intent - regardless of whether we know of them or believe in them.

It is interesting that you are not keen on an "idea of an all-powerful God", and that you have defined the nature of that God. This is something we all do. We create an idea of God and then object to it and then refuse to believe in the God of our imagination. Or we create an idea of God, like it and decide to believe in it. Here, in effect, we have what atheists and theists do.

Earlier Christian and Islamic religious thinkers generally concluded that the nature of the divine was beyond their understanding or imagination> Its a very modern thing, inspired by science, to think that God can be known and have his conduct and thought described - as a counter to the concrete thought of science. In fact I see that science is as much a product of religion as religion is a product of science in the past several centuries.
 
Top