He claims to have traveled outside his body to bring back art… and much more |297|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    I am afraid I cannot take your rationalisations seriously.
    Arguments about unicorns in bowler hats etc have nothing to to do with your subjective experience of the world.
    They are merely thoughts in your mind.

    Metaphysical idealism takes subjective experience of a thing to be the thing itself.
    It conflates subjective experience and objective existence.
    This is a fundamental error in my view.

    If you want to believe that the world only exists as experience, fine.
    For myself I accept that the world and others exist independent of my experience of them.
     
  2. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    And you suggested that I was acting under the power of religious belief!

    I would say there is the appearance that the world and others exist independently. But the true nature of reality is yet unknown.
     
    Max_B likes this.
  3. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Yes, it is an astounding leap of faith for me to assert that you exist independent of my experience of your replies here :)
     
    Far.From.Here likes this.
  4. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    Yes, I did use a very extreme image, but it's just an argument so the specific imagery is less important than the thrust of the argument. You can substitute any imagery you feel is more appropriate if that allows you to engage with the question. I personally feel that the division made between subjective and objective, as well as the downgrading of the subjective within that dualistic structure, is a long term dead end for us. I think this could be an important discussion, but I'll leave it here for now and you can let me know if you are interested in going furher, we can start a new thread in one of the sub-forums.
     
  5. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Affirming the objective existence of this world does not entail any downgrading of the subjective.
    After all, all human knowing is subjective.
    I am only asserting that there is an objective world and it plays an essential part in our knowing.

    For me epistemology concerns investigating how the subjective and the objective interact to create our knowing.
    Discerning the difference between the two; and how each contributes to the various modes of human knowing.

    There are two popular reductive theories - materialism and idealism.
    Both reduce or collapse reality and knowing into a monism.
    Personally I find both to be intellectually incoherent; and reliant on a selective approach to data.
    Which tells me they are actually ideologies.
    I reject both of them.
     
  6. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    Perhaps this from your post #217 had me thinking that's what you meant: "Science is a methodology to overcome the distortions of subjectivity" (Bolding is mine). BTW, I agree with you
    that reductionisms are a dead end. But in a similar vein, Science reduces everything that is congrete and real to a set of abstractions; i.e. distortions of the world. I don't see how by moving away from a congrete experiences of the world we can "overcome the distortions of subjectivity" by methodically applying a set of systematic distortions of that congrete reality.
     
  7. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Yes, very good points.
    That is precisely what is intriguing about human knowing; the admixture of disparate elements to arrive at a best estimation of what actually is the case.
    The problem is, it is so easy to go astray and reach false conclusions and beliefs.
    That is why the methodology of science is so powerful and successful; it tests and re-tests our theories against reality to see do they hold up.
    (it is important not to confuse current scientism, which is an ideology, with real scientific methodology)

    The reason we have this computer technology and possibility to discuss these ideas on this forum is because of scientific knowing.
     
  8. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    Agreed, Science is a useful discipline when combined with our natural curiosity, an obsessive need for answers and a seemingly innate pleasure in building better gadgets and better toys, it does seem like a net positive. But it still is just another hammer and can only deal with what a hammer can deal with. Science shatters and retreats in the face of reality. It retreats into simplifications and abstractions, it wants to reduce the totality of reality to convenient text book sized explanations and a grand unified mathematical equation. We are individuals, we are not part of a hive mind and our experiences are primary and direct. In my view the only adequate confrontation we can have with reality is our private interaction with reality, our private experience and our own being (verb) in this reality. So when Jurgen has his OBEs, these are his private and direct confrontations of the real as opposed to a distortion of some kind that has to be reshaped by hammering out the parts that went astray. What Jurgen brings back from his journeys, while interesting for me as a bystander, are not mine and my journeys would not be quite the same as his and that is the reality of things. It’s not a good change when we begin to see our experience as something that has to be subjected to a kind of smearing out into a generalized theory, and even worse when we think that is going to lead us to an understanding of the real. A tree is real. My vision of the tree is real. My memory of the tree is real. But a pencil drawing of a tree is just a sketch, a mixture of graphite and paper. I could call it a good depiction of a tree, but side by side the differences are clear. If I want to understand a tree I have to go to that specific tree and interact with it. The same with the world.
     
  9. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Science is a particular way of knowing. It attempts to reach a value neutral and quantifiable knowledge of things or conditions.
    As such it is one of the ways in which human beings have subjective interactions with the world; it is a mode of human knowing.
    Generally human beings do not have value neutral interactions with the world. The glass is either half full or half empty. Ordinary human knowing is richly impressional and emotional and interpretive and personal and conditioned by previous impressions and emotions and interpretations.

    I would distinguish between these different modes of knowing; but I would not denigrate any of them; only recognise that they have different relevances and uses.

    You and I can discuss these matters via this technology because some humans have systematically applied the scientific mode of knowing to the physics of electricity and electronics etc and have created this technology. We ought not to take for granted the fact that the technologies upon which we depend for our ordinary lives as civilised human beings are the product of scientific knowing.

    Science is a very effective hammer, to use your metaphor, and I for one am grateful for its benefits in my life. I do not regard them as distortions or smearings.
    I regard science as an integral part of human nature and the cosmic vocation of the human species.

    As regards OBEs and NDEs, in my opinion human knowing is still in a pre-scientific stage of development. My hope is that in future time human beings will systematically apply the scientific method to these matters; and I predict that discoveries will be made which will transform human life and civilisation in very profound ways.
     
  10. manjit

    manjit New

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks for this interview Alex, great guest to have on!

    I read Jurgen’s book quite a few years ago now and was pleasantly surprised to see he was a guest on the show, and even more pleasantly surprised that he was gracious enough to come here and chat on the forum in person. To be really honest, I can’t really recall the book that well so was planning on skim-re-reading it over a weekend, and coming back here to pose any questions that I may have had to Jurgen, to take that opportunity!

    I’m no expert on Jurgen, by any means, but from my limited exposure, I’m not really sure how it can be said that he is an "outright fraud"? I’m all for being direct and challenging, but I think before we make statements like "outright fraud", we should express the reasoning behind it, put those to the person in question to let them address them, and then if we find the responses unsatisfactory we are well within our rights to believe someone is an "outright fraud"? But each to their own, I think it was a bit of a loss to the forum myself!

    I recall being quite excited by the title of this book when it first came out. Several years previously, I was having some very unusual "OBEs" which are very hard to describe. The best way I can describe it is as if there were hundreds of "lives" being played or lived out across many different & unrelated "universes" or "worlds", and my consciousness was "cycling" through them, one by one. I was completely & utterly "identifying" with each "life" when I got to it, "remembered" who that was, their history and life etc. There was also an overwhelming sense of "connection" between each "life", as if there was a narrative connection I couldn’t quite put my finger on as it was so subtle. (as an aside, as I can’t really put this into words, I would "come back" to my own personality/body and I would be listening to the "inner sound", and it was this "inner sound" that was "connecting" all the "lives" – pure nonsense, I know :)

    I had no context or examples from existing literature that described these kinds of experiences, and I was kind of at a loss to understand them. In my own head I signified these experiences as the "multidimensionality of man", so when a few years later I came across Jurgen’s book, I was very excited! :) I think he did touch on these kinds of experiences...but sadly cannot recall now? Funnily enough, since those experiences, Jurgen’s book came out, I started hearing numerous NDEs that described the same thing and movies like Cloud Atlas came out.

    Is it just that I was paying more attention to the phenomena – I do not recall ever hearing or seeing anything before – or is the very nature and narrative of these experiences evolving, becoming more sophisticated?

    Just to clarify – I have no idea what the experiences mean or signify, and I cling to no particular interpretation of them. They may just be neural delusions, but they are certainly mind-blowing experientially to the person, and the "neural" hallucinations explanation just doesn’t seem to do the complexity & sense of "meaning" justice. But who knows!

    In regards Far From Here’s caveat about how we interpret the narratives of these experiences and mention of "archons" etc, I cannot agree more!

    If one takes ALL the narratives from ALL of known history from ALL the "paranormal" sources we have, then we are left with, imo, irreconcilable differences in conceptual narratives about the paranormal and after death states etc. That is my personal understanding. There are so many "outliers" of data that really do confuse matters. (of course, there are also a whole host of reasonable sounding explanations and rationalisations for these variances, some of which have been suggested in this thread)

    Having quite a broad & informed knowledge of these areas, it is sometimes too easy for me to slip into broad generalisations which mean absolutely nothing to those who prefer specifics. There are too many!

    But, let’s take a very narrow and specific example.

    For centuries, in Indian culture (I have heard a handful myself from trustworthy family and friends), a typical NDE narrative ended with some administrator for the lord/angel of death (dharam-rai or yamraj) telling death’s henchmen (yamdoots) to "take this soul back, you have brought the wrong person, this is a mistake!".

    Nowadays, in the west, the typical narrative is "Do you want to stay here or go back?" or "You still have some important work to do, you must go back".

    Now, whilst there are ways to rationalise away as ultimately benign the narratively speaking irreconcilable differences, such as the "form" the experience takes is "in part" human psychology, or that the truth or reality is so abstract that our human minds cannot comprehend it so it manifests in a form we can understand etc, there is none-the-less extremely significant differences in the narrative we are getting in relation to our "soul purpose" here on earth and the mechanics of how it all works.

    On top of this, we have the history of "angels" and "ufos" and "fairies" "Virgin Mary apparitions" etc, and how experiences with these have guided humanity and important figures through time – very often to "abandon" them or give them "bad" information once their "goal" has been achieved, like Joan of Arc etc.

    Another question to ask is, why does something manifest as an "angel" or a "fairy" or "elemental" in the past, but now appear as "aliens" from Sirius B? (to this I would add "deceased family members" during NDEs, who by other systems of thought should have incarnated elsewhere by now – time and space and identity is an illusion? Then EVERYTHING we’re discussing is an illusion!)

    Again like NDEs there may well be – and I hope so – a reasonable and benign answer related to our human limitations, or the uplifting guidance of humanity etc.

    But still we must agree that by normal human standards there is an element of "deception" or "trickery" or "manipulation"? We are not smart enough to know the truth, so here’s a children’s story for you to grasp!! It may well be true and right, but it’s still a little deceptive?

    It may well be, and I hope it is, all benign and loving and ultimately wonderful and joyous etc. But, as Far From Here says, we shouldn’t be dogmatic & unquestioning about it.

    Personally speaking – though I am not at all certain of it – I DO think ultimately it is all just one big ocean of love :eek:)

    PS – here’s an interesting website I’m sure a few have already come across:

    www.trickedbythelight.com/tbtl/index.html
     
  11. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    We don't have an argument with respect to Science as a useful tool. More fundamental to our discussion is that we come at reality from different angles, our metaphysics are at odds with each other. As a result of this we are not going to see eye to eye on the points of divergences from our metaphysics.

    When I say Science is a useful tool, the context for me is that it can be used to explore the most basic and lowest level of reality: quantitative space and time, all the "stuff" that in our modern point of view is called the objective world out there and separate from the subjective self.

    I see OBEs and NDEs as private experiences of a higher level of reality. These experience are generally described as more real than real, meaning more real than our everyday "mundane" experiences in quantitative space and time. I take that description of them being more-real-than-real at face value and conclude these are experiences of a higher order of reality not bounded by quantitative space and time. This is in general agreement with what Mystics (Christian, Moslem, Jewish, etc) have been telling us all along. These types of experiences are also overwhelming only available to the experiencer. They are private and not shareable as a primary experience amongst a group of individuals, they are not public except as communicated reports of the event. The notable but infrequent exception being shared NDEs.

    Given the private nature of these experiences, and given the inherent order of reality differences between the levels of reality we are talking about, Science is going to run up against something that is very difficult, and I believe fundamentally impossible for it to grasp. Of course there is no intrinsic limit that Science imposes on itself as part of it's assumed metaphysical stance, so I do see why in general we might think the higher levels of reality are open to scientific inquiry. But I also think this is a mistake. I think it is a mistake of imposing a quantitative structure on a level of reality that exist outside of that structure. I think at the higher level we can only fruitfully explore it as individuals (as persons), because that is where we do interact with reality in a neutral stance, although it is as individuals and a private matter. That is why looking for common ground, a theory, or model of ODEs, NDEs, is going to miss the actual importance of these experiences. They are meant to be meaningful to the individual not the group.

    Unfortunately these experiences are often assumed to be universally meaningful, i.e. pointing to a universal truth applicable to a group rather than the individual and so grow into religions.
     
    manjit likes this.
  12. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Yes we do have a divergence about science, in that I do not see it as restricted to the physical realm of this world.
    Remember, science is a methodology of knowing; a way or mode of knowing; in other words science is a mode of conscious functioning; it is a subjective consciousness activity. Therefore it can be applied to any conscious experience.

    Many people today identify science with the external physical signs of scientific consciousness, ie with technology; and many people mistake current scientism (monistic materialism) as being science. Neither is true. Science is essentially a subjective consciousness activity; a way or mode of knowing. As such it can be applied to anything we can experience or know, including the spirit realms.

    Each one of us has only a personal subjective experience of the physical Earth realm and yet we have managed to create a science which transcends personal subjectivities and local cultural and religious beliefs and customs. So in my opinion your second objection, does not hold either.

    Finally the testimony of OBEs and NDEs clearly show that the spirit realms are not solely individual and private. NDEers meet and interact with many people on the other side, and there is ample testimony of thriving communities in the spirit realms. They are not merely private or solipsistic.
     
  13. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    Yes, we are fundamentally at odds on this. With respect to your last statement, you know of course I'm not talking about how many "people" the NDEer meets on the "other side", I'm talking about how many NDEers from "this side" are doing the meeting. You can try using Science to derive some type of consensus reality of course, nothing is stopping you. We certainly do that very convincingly all the time, but when it's all said and done, our final passage from "this side" to the "other side" is not a group consciousness experience, it is singularily private. One final comment on this: we should not dismiss what mystics have been telling us all along - the way to finding the truth is through knowing the self.
     
  14. I've been curious about this idea as well. Awhile back I recall a poem about reincarnation - will have to find the reference - that seemed to suggest parts of a soul reincarnating. I've been told that some also think animal reincarnation may be parts of souls alleviating karmic debt rather than a whole being.

    Prescott recently discussed the idea of an Oversoul on his blog, which we might liken to Wilson's HGA. (Or, for those who dabble in rpgs, Mage:TA's Avatar.)

    This might also fit in with ideas about us either having multiple spirits within ourselves or even the Gnostic possibility that your psyche is part of the fallen world, and the higher self is actually above the earthly incarnation.

    All to say this idea of who you are now and who you *really* are may be strangers from the limited perspective of this life.

    In his Doctrine of Subtle Worlds & The Long Trajectory, Weiss suggest that space-time as we experience it is a limited version of the higher realms where mental disposition also helps determine one's place in the cosmos (again, for rpg players, think the Outer Planes of D&D).

    This helps to make some sense of how different experiencers end up in different places and even are sometimes told their destination is *the* destination. If your mental disposition keeps you on a certain plane of existence, of course you would think you were in the true higher level reality. In fact the very beings you converse with could be similarly fooled for that very reasonable reason.

    It's like if you hooked a person into a virtual reality simulator after they were in a coma, you could - with enough processing power - trick them into thinking they'd died and entered a potentially infinite plane. Whether it was Hellish or Heavenly it would be easy to trick the person into thinking this was all there was.


    Fascinating, I probably should check with my own family and friends and see if anyone has experienced this India NDE phenomenon. Of course - again thinking of the Wraith rpg - possibly that geography determines the afterlife you go to. Not to mention our own sense of freedom, cultural disposition, etc.

    That said, I'm not 100% convinced there's much more to be gained from NDEs than whether mind can be separate from brain. Then again there needs to be a lot more research into this phenomenon...but these cultural factors (and cases where living persons are seen) do make me wonder what exactly is going on.

    I suspect things may be more mundane than people imagine, in the sense that Purgatory might be like a trip to a processing plant or a DMV.


    Could you elaborate on the Joan of Arch part? Thanks! I can't recall but have you read Kripal's account of the Fatima miracle? Things seem much more unusual than Mary appearing when compared to the UFO abduction experience.


    "They're always coming as gods or aliens or fairies or some other shite. I just wanna know what they look like in the nude you know?"

    "The truth dazzles gradually, lest the world go blind. What do you think they'd look like, my young Buddha?"

    "That they'd look like us. So much so you couldn't tell the difference. That's just what I think though..."


    -Grant Morrison, Invisibles. :)

    Had not heard of this - will check it out and ideally it'll be a good addition to the Dark Side of the Paranormal Resources Thread.
     
    manjit likes this.
  15. Michael2

    Michael2 New

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    271
    This is in line with the sufi concept of like knowing like.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  16. Yanni

    Yanni New

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    OMG!! Jurgen is Ginko!
     
  17. Yanni

    Yanni New

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    I still can't believe that Ginko is Jurgen's sockpuppet. That was the ultimate self-attack (a false flag perhaps?) He really wanted out of here.
     
  18. manjit

    manjit New

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks for the fascinating reply SSP, a few things I'll need to check out there!

    I hadn't checked out Michael's blog for a few months as the activity had died down, thanks for the reminder - glad there's a few posts to catch up on, the "oversoul" one sounds very interesting!

    I have a bit of an unusual take or interest in NDEs myself, I guess. I have no real interest or concern or even comprehension of an "afterlife" myself really, I am entirely concerned with my stream of conscious experience in the present moment, and I think NDEs and "mystical" experiences in general are telling us something about that.

    Re. Kirpal and the Fatima phenomena, it does ring a loud bell - if you've linked it here I've probably read it! Which thread is it in, I'll have a look?

    I'm a big fan of Kripal's writing and read both "Authors" and "Mutants" so it's also possible I read it in one of those? I think between Vallee, Keel and Kirpal I know what you're referring to when you compare UFOs to Mary apparitions. In my mind, there is a connection between almost all "paranormal" or "anomalous" phenomena which transcends (or runs deeper than) any sectarian or theological differences, if you see what I mean.

    Re. Joan of Arc, in summary and off top of my head, her story is quite remarkable and suggestive of influences greater than just human plotting. She was a young child in a normal household, who was contacted and guided by these "angels" to lead unlikely successful rebellions against the English, demonstrating "paranormal" powers along the way. However, after her destiny was accomplished, the angels started to tell her information which was wrong and which eventually lead to her torture and death. This is a fairly common sort of story and seems to be indicating something to us about the nature of these experiences.

    I'm sorry, I'm absolutely terrible with names, details etc. Once I absorb the essence of a story, I forget the details :) I believe I've read about Joan's story in the rather brilliant - and I highly recommend this book to anybody with an interest in the areas of mystical experiences, HGAs, automatic writing, angels etc - Anthony Peake's The Daemon, as well as perhaps some of Kripal's writings, and also Mark Booth's The Secret History of the World and Sacred History of the World. Here's a link I just found with multiple pages, not sure if it really covers the aspects I'm referring to, but seems to:

    http://www.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html

    PS - re the tricked by the light website, it is quite interesting and different, but also a whole lot to be taken with a pinch of salt, which I'm sure the author themself would agree with (I'm all up for a bit of hidden symbology in media, movies, company logos etc, but some of the connections are sooooo tenuous...not just this website but other similar well known ones too, like perhaps Secret Sun blog which is also great fun and interesting....but often a little too speculative)

    Anyway, here's a good & updated intro to Wayne Bush's ideas as he was interviewed on The Higherside Chats middle of last year:

    http://thehighersidechats.com/wayne-bush-tricked-by-the-light-conspiracy-interview/
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  19. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    Ha ha. I have the same exact thing.
     
  20. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,490
    There's a fascinating NDE on this site. His interviews about 3hrs long and to be honest I found the host annoying. But the guest is worth the 3hour frustration I think. Thanks for directing me to it. ;;/?
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.

Share This Page