Hey Charlie
I grew up living this weird, weird stuff. I absolutely get that anybody who has not been exposed to it should be doubtful. My experiences are not yours and I would never expect you to take my word as a basis for your own opinion or belief. But, I would equally expect you'd not doubt my report of my experiences, beyond being unable to resolve a personal opinion.
From my perspective PSI is not 'high strangeness' but normal. In fact its absence from human experience should a cause for concern, because it would mean that something is awry. PSI has been a natural part of human experience that has been undoubted, and even unremarked upon, because it was so normal. It has been only the denialism of materialism that has made it an issue.
Trust me, this is what any fair minded review of the literature will tell any diligent researcher. But check it out by all means. Its one thing to be a hold out against rhetoric and bullshit. Its another thing to refuse to look at, or ignore, the evidence.
I know from your past posts that you are neither careless nor ignorant. So I am puzzled by your argument.
Hi Michael, um, you quoted my post, but addressed Charlie (as in Charlie Primero). I'm going to assume your post was directed my way.
Yes, I completely agree that PSI is very real and somehow a fundamental aspect of existence. My use of the word weird was in clarifying a point for Charlie from a previous post in which I called PSI and the paranormal 'irrational'. Irrational in that they undermine some of the fundamentals of Aristotelian Logic, specifically the concept of the excluded middle (something is either A, or not A). So, in the above way, the paranormal is highly boundary dissolving and undermining of binary oppositions (internal/external, imagination/reality, dead/alive, object/subject, past/present, etc).
So, the paranormal is, again, in a very specific and literal way, irrational and weird - it's a liminal (border) phenomena.
Do you see what I'm trying (perhaps inarticulately) to get at?
I think it can be very challenging (it was for me) when people first look closely at NDEs, OOBEs, UFOs, psychedelic experiences, 'abductions', etc. The superficial popular view of the aforementioned phenomena give the impression that they can be quite easily sorted into various classifiable boxes, closer inspection reveals them to be far trickier subjects.
So, I was wondering if imposing a conspiracy theory over the paranormal (eg. That all UFO 'abduction' experiences are screen memories implanted by a government mind control program) wasn't an attempt to rationalise and impose structure on an inherently irrational and deconstructing phenomena?
And I get this need - unprepared engagement with the liminal can be a slippery slope and lead to some unhealthy states. This danger is probably more pronounced for us moderns, raised as we are in a highly complex, rationalised society. That being said, even traditional societies have rituals and other means of containing the potential runaway aspects of the liminal.
Best.
You wouldn't need hypnosis and its considered academically....
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I found it very, very educational and interesting, genuinely. I guess my beef with Derren Brown comes from the fact that he does use disingenuous framing of his shows. For example: In one episode he claims to defy conventional expert opinion and produce, via hypnosis, a sleeper assassin, walking around unawares, waiting for his trigger to shoot a public figure. And we could call it entertainment and leave it there, fine. But he also produces shows in which he claims to use hypnosis and other techniques to debunk a range of paranormal phenomena.
To me, there's a hypocrisy at play here - claiming to be a sceptical voice of reason while producing misleading TV.
Anyway, thanks again for the great posts.
Interesting. I would look to the Catholic Church (skulduggery and conspiracy has historically been their stock-in-trade). If they wanted to put ‘miracles’ and whatnot back on the table, the first wedge would be to engage some useful idiots:
OK, leaving behind attempts at smart-assery, yeah, you're right, funding and its effects on research is a big issue. But if the methodologies used hold up to close scrutiny, well, then the research stands on its own merits.
Nice post. Human susceptibility to instruction, suggestion and expectation, even as fully formed adults, is quite astounding.
For better or for worse, we're definitely social creatures. And while I can see this having a big evolutionary advantage, I'm still not sure how much of it is down to nature vs. nurture. Either way, I don't think anyone here is claiming that biology has
no shaping effect on consciousness.
Fair enough. As long as you recognize my own right to view the bulk of the mainstream narrative as equally infectious steaming piles of crap. Ya'll might need to stay away from my brand of crazy, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy cook that I am, fair enough. But please, tell me how I can stay away from all y'all, b/c the walls are closing in!So, as two rationally-driven individuals trying to steer clear of our own version of crap from the outskirts, how might we find alliance?
Please don't remind me of that post. :) I said earlier in the thread how I regretted taking such an adversarial approach. I still do. Check out my reply to Michael Patterson for the context in which I've been using the words irrational and rational.