Dr. Chris White Optimistic About Science Spirituality Crossover |402|

#81
Yes, which is why I say that science is necessary but not sufficient. If an alien lands on the White House lawn and a Zeblork steps out of a plasma-craft gift to mankind; as a welcome of mankind into the local Federation - this is not a discovery of science. This is revelatory (a meteor with microbe fossils on it would do the same thing). That is why I say that science (a method) is necessary but not sufficient. The irony exists in that much of what we regard as 'the body of science' is revelatory in origin, and much of what we regard as 'pseudoscience' stems from 'incremental hypothesis in risk inquiry resolved by inference driven from observation and critical path of prior art'. The distinguishing factor is in its utilization of probative, over simply reliable, data.
thanks for another great post. love the survey :)

but isn't science now, and hasn't it always been, a social construct? A strange brew of cultural myth, social conditioning, human cognition limitations, and an array of liars, cheats, and psychopaths combined with the really hard job of following the scientific method.

for example, it seems to me that the best evidence suggests that aliens have already "landed on the White House lawn" it's just a matter of making them visible to those who won't see. as I've discussed many times on the show, I think the December 2017 New York Times UFO roll out is an example of this. they're trying to tell everybody "look aliens have landed on the White House lawn," but no one listened. could "science" help understand what's going on re "aliens"? sure... (Vallee's materials analysis immediately comes to mind) but this just won't happen.

worse yet, there are all sorts of other confounding variables. for example, are we not able to see because there is a technology at play that has some control over memory? as strange as this sounds it's a common feature of of many who had an ET contact experience. you'll hear more about this in my upcoming interview with Kevin Day the Navy Seaman who witness one of the largest UFO encounters in history... but you'll also run across that time and time again with all sorts of folks who have had ET contact experience. and that's not even getting into tulpa thing and the idea that reality is a thought-form we're continuously creating :)
 
#83
I think it's easy for people to bemoan perceived "disenchantment" in the modern world, but it may just be the case that those folks are using "disenchantment" as a synonym for human pain and suffering, and they may be thinking of enchantment as some hypothetical resolution for the usual anxieties and discomforts that people of all eras have experienced. If that's the case, we're probaly no more or less enchanted than people at any time in history.
nice... feels right to me.

re yr point about time:
 
#84
IMO, altered states are still realities created interactions of thoughts, energies and focus of attention. They are just a different set of realities than the ones you're used to because the boxes you're habitually confined to have either opened enough that you can see out of them or, in more extreme instances, have been removed.
very cool, new-for-me way of thinking about this.

I used to also believe that altered states were somehow more "real" due to the opening or removal of the boxes. Now I understand that any reality you're in is just as real as any other reality you may experience. It's all you, man.
another great one :) I can't tell you the number of times I've left that "realer than real" thing slip past me... never felt quite right :)
 
#85
The thing is the grass does change its color every so oftern, the sun moves around erratically in the sky, the dying become well,people
just develop random holes in their bodies, strange things appear in the sky. These things happen to single people and they happen to crowds.
We do need a model that brings in the unexplained that doesnt wrap it in a phrase and kick it aside.
I dont think we have enough original thought or the right type of thinking to change much at any one time but you can see a progression and a strengthening of thought memes all around us at any time.Take something simple like computing, try find the start of that thought,make a mental
movie of it, speed it up and you will see how things just randomly appear, almost like a ufo appearing in the sky.Crap example but Im struggling to find something material to explain the unexplained... basically: thought..time... something material( which we are told is just energy vibrating).
nice... I just posted a YouTube video (a few posts back) from Grant Morrison that someone shared with me a while back. I think it speaks directly to your point. I would repost but don't want to create clutter :)
 
#86
We can know then other side in a variety of ways - astral travel, lucid dreaming and other states of consciousness. But translating that experience into ways we can understand this side is a difficult matter.
I do not disagree, but for me personally, studying these reported experiences of others in these realms has helped my understanding of our current realm, at least I BELIEVE that it has. At least in a metaphysical sense.

What it tells me is that our current realm is NOT “base reality.” And that these other realms are not these spooky “spiritual realms.” They are just other places, like our current place, where conscious beings live. They are no more or less “spiritual” than our current Universe. I now look at what most people call “spiritual realms” as just other places as I do France, or Japan etc. The “ghosts” who live in these places aren’t ghosts, they’re just conscious beings like me living elsewhere. And some of these places are completely as physical as our Universe (apparently based on a plethora of credible reports).

It’s quite a shift from the predominant Western Christian influenced notion of the “spirit world” as just a singular ethereal realm where God lives. And this is the sort of impression or base assumption that many/most hold in the Western world whether they are Christian or not.

We need to shift away from seeing these other conscious beings as less real and ghostly, and rather begin seeing them as ALIVE conscious beings, the opposite of dead. And also to cease imagining our Universe as “the material world” and everything else as a fundamentally different “spiritual realm.” There are likely countless numbers of dimensions (if that’s what you want to call them) where beings are operating and working on their spiritual growth, which (to me) means the same things as, “working on the quality of their conscious experience.”
 
#87
Right, but now consider that conventional science will tell you that grass is green because of chlorophyll, which absorbs most of the energy at the red and blue frequencies. In turn that absorption can be traced to the QM properties of the chlorophyll molecule (QM calculations on molecules that big are pretty approximate, but forgetting that.....) etc. Thus idealism could collapse into something almost identical to conventional science, because the underlying equations of QM have presumably been endorsed implicitly by every living thing, or it could expand to be an 'anything goes' physosophy.

I think there are a lot of interesting things to be discovered at that interface between consciousness and science, and I don't think simply postulating Idealism is the way to uncover them.

David
David,
Well...that's how you get stuck in consensus reality.

Do you agree that in a dream there could be purple grass? So "science" (and you) will respond that dreams aren't real. The only thing that real is a material world built out of "logic", "rationality" and scientific facts. Yet, when you're in the dream it's certainly real to you. What about afterlife communications that have verifiable content? Landscapes are described that glow (including the plants). What of that? Does photosynthesis make plants glow with an inner light? Of course, science says that there is no afterlife - and perhaps you think it's not as real as this world?

IMO, this consensus world is just one of many that we can perceive and exist in and it is built out of a certain focus of awareness on certain concepts that evolve an internal coherence and consistency because we focus on it.
 
#88
very cool, new-for-me way of thinking about this.


another great one :) I can't tell you the number of times I've left that "realer than real" thing slip past me... never felt quite right :)
IMO, It feels "realer than real" to many experiencers because there is a lot of energy freed up when the focus of awareness shifts. It takes tremendous personal energy to maintain the focus on your habitual world, your ego, etc. Usually, people's awareness shifts to new worlds because they have "let go" via one technique or another (even if accidental). So you've got all this free energy and it's like "WOW! THIS IS IT!" - That is the fundamental energy of the universe of you. You may have experience this to a minor degree if, say, you go to a concert and lose yourself in the music and dancing; or when "in love"...your partner is IT! S/he is the real thing! A year later you're fighting and breaking up, but in the meanwhile you're losing yourself in her/him and that frees up a lot of energy.

I also think that's why people who have these experiences come back saying, "It's all about Love". It feels so good; all that essential energy released (kundalini?). Personally, I find the feeling to be more divine ecstasy than love, but maybe that's a personal thing.
 
#89
Well we don't need it, but we should definitely keep pushing. I mean we do have a variety of academic folk on our side, or at least holding interesting positions:

Donald Hoffman
Henry Stapp
Sam Parnia
etc etc

Like a lot of people here, I want to understand the real interface between the deterministic science - much of which is reproducible - and ψ.

David
A number of years ago I talked to Dean Radin and one of my questions for him why he didn't take the stars from his psi subject pool and run experiments with them as opposed to totally random samples. My point was that instead of getting results that required calculating P values that appear obscure and getting accused of suffering "file drawer" effects, etc, why not get results that would blow the socks off anyone reading the results and be undeniable? He responded that he wasn't interested in blowing the socks off anyone. He was convinced of the reality of psi and that's all that mattered.

I also interacted with Russell Targ (long before the internet) and basically proposed the same approach to him. He rambled on about protocols and wasn't interested in any "cowboy" approaches to the remote viewing program.

Similarly, Julie Beischel seems to me to be bogged down in scientific protocol so strict that her results are diluted. I understand why she takes the approach that she does, but it's kind of sad that she has to do that at this stage of the game.

My point being that even scientists working on the good side of this stuff hamstring themselves.
 
#90
thanks for another great post. love the survey :)

but isn't science now, and hasn't it always been, a social construct? A strange brew of cultural myth, social conditioning, human cognition limitations, and an array of liars, cheats, and psychopaths combined with the really hard job of following the scientific method.
Thanks Alex. :) Yes, but this array of flaws with respect to science, resides in our skepticism (philosophy underpinning science) and not science itself.

for example, it seems to me that the best evidence suggests that aliens have already "landed on the White House lawn" it's just a matter of making them visible to those who won't see. as I've discussed many times on the show, I think the December 2017 New York Times UFO roll out is an example of this. they're trying to tell everybody "look aliens have landed on the White House lawn," but no one listened. could "science" help understand what's going on re "aliens"? sure... (Vallee's materials analysis immediately comes to mind) but this just won't happen.
Syllogism, soundness, inference and incremental critical path. It is all about that focus - everything else is ingens vanitatum (a great deal of irrelevance). Events such as the Nimitz incidents, allow us to say 'The hypothesis contending that any form of putative non-humanity operating on our planet is also exclusively non-existent (the null hypothesis), has been falsified through repeated, reliable direct observation.' This is deductive inference. This is complete, yes. A craft landing on the White House Lawn would be revelatory inference (not incremental critical path) - a different level of discovery all together. Maybe they are trying to see if our science can understand the difference? And if we cannot, then we are not ready as a species to engage with them. We would rarely ever 'get' anything which they had to say - and a fight would inevitably ensue.

worse yet, there are all sorts of other confounding variables. for example, are we not able to see because there is a technology at play that has some control over memory? as strange as this sounds it's a common feature of of many who had an ET contact experience. you'll hear more about this in my upcoming interview with Kevin Day the Navy Seaman who witness one of the largest UFO encounters in history... but you'll also run across that time and time again with all sorts of folks who have had ET contact experience. and that's not even getting into tulpa thing and the idea that reality is a thought-form we're continuously creating :)
Yes, when I had my run-in with an anomalous craft - especially the visual portion of the engagement, I curiously found my mind attempting to erase the whole event. Fortunately I had disciplines in place which prevented it (and help in stopping this process, from the other 7 people who also witnessed it - while we were all in the moment)
 
#91
I do not disagree, but for me personally, studying these reported experiences of others in these realms has helped my understanding of our current realm, at least I BELIEVE that it has. At least in a metaphysical sense.

What it tells me is that our current realm is NOT “base reality.” And that these other realms are not these spooky “spiritual realms.” They are just other places, like our current place, where conscious beings live. They are no more or less “spiritual” than our current Universe. I now look at what most people call “spiritual realms” as just other places as I do France, or Japan etc. The “ghosts” who live in these places aren’t ghosts, they’re just conscious beings like me living elsewhere. And some of these places are completely as physical as our Universe (apparently based on a plethora of credible reports).

It’s quite a shift from the predominant Western Christian influenced notion of the “spirit world” as just a singular ethereal realm where God lives. And this is the sort of impression or base assumption that many/most hold in the Western world whether they are Christian or not.

We need to shift away from seeing these other conscious beings as less real and ghostly, and rather begin seeing them as ALIVE conscious beings, the opposite of dead. And also to cease imagining our Universe as “the material world” and everything else as a fundamentally different “spiritual realm.” There are likely countless numbers of dimensions (if that’s what you want to call them) where beings are operating and working on their spiritual growth, which (to me) means the same things as, “working on the quality of their conscious experience.”
Yes thats great, we need to take away the fear and suspicion.Im struggling for a better word than spiritual as that has a lot of baggage for me
so I use thought as that allows for me a deepening to occur.What I mean is that if a lot of people make up a god and a lot of people pray to that god is gets a certain power or deepening.This for me explains Christ Conciousness, it can be real even if Jesus was not God or real, he has become
so with the combined power of thought and prayer which is another type of thought.
 
#92
A number of years ago I talked to Dean Radin and one of my questions for him why he didn't take the stars from his psi subject pool and run experiments with them as opposed to totally random samples. My point was that instead of getting results that required calculating P values that appear obscure and getting accused of suffering "file drawer" effects, etc, why not get results that would blow the socks off anyone reading the results and be undeniable? He responded that he wasn't interested in blowing the socks off anyone. He was convinced of the reality of psi and that's all that mattered.

I also interacted with Russell Targ (long before the internet) and basically proposed the same approach to him. He rambled on about protocols and wasn't interested in any "cowboy" approaches to the remote viewing program.

Similarly, Julie Beischel seems to me to be bogged down in scientific protocol so strict that her results are diluted. I understand why she takes the approach that she does, but it's kind of sad that she has to do that at this stage of the game.

My point being that even scientists working on the good side of this stuff hamstring themselves.
If I was really small and short and athletic and had a big brother who was tall but a TV watching couch potato Id ask him to reach up to the high cupboards in the kitchen where Mom hid the Chocolates so I could eat some when I wanted but I doubt Id ask him to join my Soccer team
 
#93
Thanks Alex. :) Yes, but this array of flaws with respect to science, resides in our skepticism (philosophy underpinning science) and not science itself.



Syllogism, soundness, inference and incremental critical path. It is all about that focus - everything else is ingens vanitatum (a great deal of irrelevance). Events such as the Nimitz incidents, allow us to say 'The hypothesis contending that any form of putative non-humanity operating on our planet is also exclusively non-existent (the null hypothesis), has been falsified through repeated, reliable direct observation.' This is deductive inference. This is complete, yes. A craft landing on the White House Lawn would be revelatory inference (not incremental critical path) - a different level of discovery all together. Maybe they are trying to see if our science can understand the difference? And if we cannot, then we are not ready as a species to engage with them. We would rarely ever 'get' anything which they had to say - and a fight would inevitably ensue.



Yes, when I had my run-in with an anomalous craft - especially the visual portion of the engagement, I curiously found my mind attempting to erase the whole event. Fortunately I had disciplines in place which prevented it (and help in stopping this process, from the other 7 people who also witnessed it - while we were all in the moment)
Do you remember if your focus or conciousness shifted just that little bit before you had your experience, say like a slightly lighter feel to your physical body?
 
#94
A number of years ago I talked to Dean Radin and one of my questions for him why he didn't take the stars from his psi subject pool and run experiments with them as opposed to totally random samples. My point was that instead of getting results that required calculating P values that appear obscure and getting accused of suffering "file drawer" effects, etc, why not get results that would blow the socks off anyone reading the results and be undeniable? He responded that he wasn't interested in blowing the socks off anyone. He was convinced of the reality of psi and that's all that mattered.
Well maybe Dean listened to you, because he did his double slit experiment using experienced meditaters.
I also interacted with Russell Targ (long before the internet) and basically proposed the same approach to him. He rambled on about protocols and wasn't interested in any "cowboy" approaches to the remote viewing program.
I can't see anything 'cowboy' about taking the best performers. After all, regardless of who you choose, conventional theory predicts a nul result!
Similarly, Julie Beischel seems to me to be bogged down in scientific protocol so strict that her results are diluted. I understand why she takes the approach that she does, but it's kind of sad that she has to do that at this stage of the game.
Well I think the fact that some people have passed her very strict protocol, is obviously highly encouraging, and anyone can use one of those mediums with high confidence that they are the real deal.
My point being that even scientists working on the good side of this stuff hamstring themselves.
Have you looked at Rupert Sheldrake's work?

David
 
#95
David,
Well...that's how you get stuck in consensus reality.

Do you agree that in a dream there could be purple grass? So "science" (and you) will respond that dreams aren't real. The only thing that real is a material world built out of "logic", "rationality" and scientific facts. Yet, when you're in the dream it's certainly real to you. What about afterlife communications that have verifiable content? Landscapes are described that glow (including the plants). What of that? Does photosynthesis make plants glow with an inner light? Of course, science says that there is no afterlife - and perhaps you think it's not as real as this world?

IMO, this consensus world is just one of many that we can perceive and exist in and it is built out of a certain focus of awareness on certain concepts that evolve an internal coherence and consistency because we focus on it.
Well I don't know your background - I did a chemistry degree and PhD, so I am really interested in how the world of science connects to the world of ψ. Clearly they may be others who are interested in ψ without being interested in science - but hey there is room for everyone!

Please be clear, I am certainly not trying to use science arguments to argue against ψ phenomena.

David
 
#96
Do you remember if your focus or conciousness shifted just that little bit before you had your experience, say like a slightly lighter feel to your physical body?
No, not really. Just a normal watch on the bridge of the ship. I called the Captain to the bridge (per standing orders) .. and he said, 'You'd be surprised how many times this happens.'
 
#97
Well maybe Dean listened to you, because he did his double slit experiment using experienced meditaters. David
Huh..no kidding. When was that? How did it work out?

I can't see anything 'cowboy' about taking the best performers. After all, regardless of who you choose, conventional theory predicts a nul result! David
I agree! Ultimately the "Star gate" program did utilize proven remote reviewers. And it sought those who had certain characteristics that were deemed to have a positive correlation to psi ability. My reference was about a test phase for determining if OBEs and psi were real. It's a little obscure. I should probably scratch that.

Well I think the fact that some people have passed her very strict protocol, is obviously highly encouraging, and anyone can use one of those mediums with high confidence that they are the real deal. David
True what you say. However, I think the general public would get a better feel for how real mediumship can be *if* all of the protocols were dropped. Just have someone who the medium has never met and who's name is unknown sit down in front of the medium. Use only subjects who have had someone close be deceased in the last 6 months to 1 year.


Have you looked at Rupert Sheldrake's work?

David
Yes. I think he's on to something.
 
#98
Huh..no kidding. When was that? How did it work out?
He got a small bu tsignificant effect. However, I must say, I wonder if this is any different from other PK experiments because I guess the PK effect could consist of just distorting some part of the apparatus for a moment.
True what you say. However, I think the general public would get a better feel for how real mediumship can be *if* all of the protocols were dropped. Just have someone who the medium has never met and who's name is unknown sit down in front of the medium. Use only subjects who have had someone close be deceased in the last 6 months to 1 year.
Well, I suppose the general public would appreciate a more reliable way of obtaining contact with dead family/friends.

David
 
#99
I think there's a distinction between how we perceive reality and reality itself. It's possible that we have a conscious or unconscious role in creating how we perceive reality, but I doubt we actually create it as it actually is. It's also possible that in some circumstances (the use of psychoactive drugs, NDEs etc.) we perceive the world differently from the consensus view; but who is to say which view is real? Maybe no perceived view represents what is actually there: there are just consensus and other views, and they're all at best approximations of reality.

That said, the consensus view (where it's based on empirical experience as opposed to hypothetical conjecture) is, by and large, very useful as a collection of icons (a la Donald Hoffman) of reality in helping us survive. It's definitely useful to understand that if I fall off the edge of a cliff, I'll end up as a bloody pulp on the ground; so if I want to survive, I'll avoid going too near to the edge. What a cliff, what height and gravity actually are, it doesn't really matter (though it helps if representations of various "things" are consistent with one another). They're icons of something, and we have to take them seriously, albeit not literally.

If we created reality, there'd be no meaning to the term discovery; we'd never discover icons like DNA, for example. Somehow, we'd have to have created them, all unbeknownst to ourselves. I find this idea highly improbable. No: I believe that there is reality, "things in themselves" as Kant might have said, but that, for whatever reason, we don't perceive them as they actually are. Mind At Large doesn't create its order and regularity, but intrinsically is ordered and regular. That's just how it is, and our science is (or at least should be) about interpreting how we perceive, in iconic terms at least, reality.

Under the influence of psychedelics, in deep meditative states, etc. I doubt that reality changes; however, perception of reality definitely changes, and maybe that includes perceiving aspects of reality that we usually can't; includes perceiving new/unfamiliar icons that we interpret as spirits, ghosts, ETs, various "psychic phenomena" and so forth. And such interpretations are and have long been present in various cultures and may, consciously or unconsciously, help shape our perceptions. Please note that I'm not saying that "ghosts","spirits" and "ET"s aren't icons of something that actually exists, only that our interpretations are susceptible to influences from various consensus opinions (which may or may not be the view of minorities) about their nature.

For survival purposes, the everyday interpretation of reality (especially where it's based on experiential empiricism) is good enough, and science at its best has its role in continually refining that interpretation. What never ceases to amaze me is that, as we have refined our interpretations, and been able to go more and more deeply into the fine structure of reality, we have been able to discover empirical facts that seem consistent.

We see green grass (BTW, there is at least one grass species that is purple), and over time have come to "understand" that in terms of the structure of the chlorophyll molecule, Quantum mechanics and so forth. Note the quotes: we don't actually "understand" what's going on, but have been able to construct fairly consistent narratives over a wide range of scales of the icons of reality, albeit not reality itself. Where science tends to stray into dangerous territory is when it asserts that the narratives are reality and can't ever change, and also when it excludes empirical evidence coming from significantly large minority groups because it dogmatically asserts they can't be based on icons of the real.

Because science has closed its mind to the possibility of the existence of things outside its usual scope, it has shut itself off from lots of evidence, and can't possibly hope to refine its understanding of reality; indeed prevents its refinement. Luckily, I think this attitude is becoming less and less tenable; people like Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman are increasingly being taken seriously by the mainstream.

I suspect this is because science has progessed to the point where it is realising its interpretations, its narratives, are inadequate. What it needs for a breakthrough is enough people with the courage to challenge the status quo to come forward and be counted. This is already happening with respect to the Darwinian interpretation of evolution -- there are already over 1,000 scientists who have added their name to a list of dissenters. They aren't all ID people by any means; just people who at least agree that Darwinism has become untenable. At some point, the numbers will become so large that lots more will come out of the closet and the paradigm will begin to shift. At last, we'll be able to freely and unashamedly investigate new icons of reality and to refine our interpretations of them.

Edit: Just after posting this, I watched Jeffrey Mishlove's fourth and latest video interview with Bernardo Kastrup. Bernardo touches quite a lot on issues relevant to this thread and to a few elements of my post, so I thought I'd add it:

 
Last edited:
He got a small bu tsignificant effect. However, I must say, I wonder if this is any different from other PK experiments because I guess the PK effect could consist of just distorting some part of the apparatus for a moment.

David
I think PK is another instance that tends to prove idealism (grass turning purple from our discussion above). I have seen two undeniable PK events in my life. One from a living agent and one from a deceased agent (I know I'm making assumptions about the source). I practice skepticism whenever it comes to the paranormal and I am hardest on myself because I like to know what's going on and not be the fool. But I am positive that both incidents are exactly what I saw them to be.

In instance one there was a door that was locked. I know because I had just tried to open it. Also, it was after hours and the door always locked after hours. A guy I knew, who was an Apache and a member of a "medicine clan" (Bear clan/White Mountain Apaches) waived his hand at the door from ten feet away and the door just opened - it was one of those heavy commercial steel framed doors. There was no one inside to have opened the door because I stepped in and looked. My friend took credit for opening the door with his hand wave and was laughing about it. I was stunned by this.

Incident two was a few months after my father died and all sorts of banging and knocks were happening in my house that never happened before or after, During a séance with a top notch medium, my father's spirit came through loud and clear with much verifiable intimate detail. I had given the medium a false name and registered using a one time gmail account that I set up at the public library, again with totally false name. I only paid the medium after the séance. So no credit card info or anything like that. My father took credit for the PK activity in my house (said he needed to get my attention as he had things to tell me - which he did at the séance - I didn't bring it up at the séance...in fact I pretty much just sat there while the medium, who had assumed my father's idiosyncratic mannerisms fired off detail after detail...the spirit brought up the weird goings on and was specific about some objects that had moved around and he was detailed; example - specifically stating that he had taken my wife's "pink wallet" which had, indeed gone missing. How could a cold reader or whatever know about a pink wallet?). The weirdest of those events was a week or two after the séance I joked about seeing how good my father could be at this poltergeist stuff. I had found a hair barrette that had belonged to my daughter and that she had left in my house went she deployed in the Navy. I found it in an odd place where I was sure it hadn't been before. I told my father (speaking to the air) to do something with it. I set it on the counter in the kitchen and then my wife and I went for a walk. I know it was on the counter when we left because my wife went out first and I closed and locked the door, looking back at the barrette as I closed the door. Well 15 minutes into our walk my wife got a weird look on her face and reached into her coat pocket...yep. It was the barrette. When we got home I opened the door first and looked immediately at the counter where I know I had left the barrette. Of course, it was gone.

Then there are all the OBEs I used to experience and some of the veridical information I brought back. Again, ruling out coincidence, subconscious clues, etc. Some of what I experienced defies what science tells us about the nature of time and space.

These incidents cannot be ignored for rules about how things work dictated by people who are too afraid to face the evidence that the little world they've assembled is a sham in terms of The Way - and ONLY WAY -Things Are. Many sane normal people have experiences similar to mine. It's going on all of the time.

*So grass does turn purple*. You obviously don't have to believe my anecdotes. But they are a couple more clues as to where I'm coming from in all of this. And I have better things to do than to hang around on the internet lying to people.
 
Last edited:
Top