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

Michael,
I have read it and I agree that everyone interested in this stuff should read it as well.

The medium that not only impressed me and made a believer out of my highly skeptical wife (at the time) + previously the very serious person I respect who recommended her, has suffered severe health issues in recent years. She was probably in her late 30s and no more than 40 when we sat with her (circa 2012 and 2014). By 2016 she had brain surgery to remove tumors. Her health never recovered. I think she may have died in past year. She lived about 160 miles from me and we saw her in person at her home, though she used to do séances over the phone as well.

As an aside, part of disguising my identity was to not give her a phone number. We even took the train to her town and hiked about 2 miles from the station to her house because I didn't want her to be able to trace a license plate - not that I think she did those things, but at the time I didn't know and wanted to rule out all normal means of knowing anything about me no matter how unlikely. I scheduled the event online using a computer at a library in a different town from which I live (using a fake name of course). Also, having a session at her house did not require securing the appointment with a credit card (another potential source of gathering information that could be used in the séance by a fraud). Rather, I paid her after the séance with cash.

Anyhow, after the sittings, my wife and her began friendly communications. My wife became very concerned with her health. She told my wife that mediums of her caliber often suffer health consequences, but that she would continue her work as long as possible regardless. The brave and wonderful woman paid the price.

Another aside, she seemed to have been a hybrid between psychic medium and the other types. When she was doing the séance with us, her entire demeanor, tone of voice and body language changed and matched that of the deceased who was communicating. There was none of this "I'm getting an impression that...". Instead it was direct statements being made by the spirit. At times it was as if the spirit had taken over her. At other times she was herself passing along the thoughts of the spirit (who she said was standing right in front of her and was "up in her face" - this was the spirit of a highly aggressive, intelligent, but sarcastic person in life), a big contrast to the warm loving nature of medium herself. reflecting more on the seance, when the topic was very emotional, the spirit took her over. When the topic was more factual, the medium passed along the thoughts of the spirit.

IMO, spirits don't know much more about the hows and whys than living people do. An asshole in life is still and asshole after death and can - and will -deploy the same tactics against you that they did when alive, but now (after death) you can't see them and they can be very sneaky about impacting your mind and health.

IMO, NDEs and new age religious training make people believe that everything is light and love after death + enlightenment. Maybe it is for some people, but certainly not for all by any means.

Just one part I want to respond too, though all of it is very interesting...

Isn't the deads ignorance evidence for a knowledge filter or security system?
 
Wow! I had a quick look. There is genuine depth here, and of value to meet a personal need. The fact is that since the internet there are thousands of points of contact that meet individual needs. They are at various levels to suit personal needs and they are of varying degrees of complexity and sophistication. Inspiration is raining on us and we can all get wet with what we need to grow a little. I have a poorly maintained blog (aspiringanimist.com) that seems to hit the spot for some people at the right time for them.

My friend Enresto Sirolli inspired me with the idea I take as the sun of love and the water of inspiration. To grow, to evolve, this is what we need.

I noticed a post from Eric that suggested a problematic understanding of love, and I have to say it is the most difficult of notions to grasp. I am not going to attempt dig deeper.

The tradition I was educated in accepts the idea of Love/Wisdom as a thing. Love is not something alone. It is a framework without a focus. Love without wisdom is like passion without morality. Love needs wisdom to be whole. The same applies to Buddhism - compassion needs wisdom to be whole.

Since language can be a bugaboo, I'll assume you could write a book about love. You have this incredible intelligence and connection within. OK Im going to recognize the importance of oxytocin LOL. No chemical love, no life production eh? Get that out of the way.
But thats not the description I use about this highest love. NDE experiences abound with smacking into this experience. It is the bliss and revelation of kensho. Once experienced, it's transformational. It is the underlying matrix of consciousness and is analogous to what hydrogen is to the physical universe. Everything is imbued with it. No matter what gross appearance matter takes it takes its form through the underlying substrate of love.

As John says so simply "God is love". It is not without unless without is within. It is omnipresent. The compassion of the bodhisattva is unconditional. To be at service to all sentient beings is connected wholeness in its fullest expression. You are so very loved in not a platitude but expression of wholeness. There is no separation in this ultimate experience of love.
On the human level, It acts without information or knowingness, without expectation of reward or gratitude. It is recognition without understanding. It flows like wind through open windows of presence. Its mysterious yet compelling. It gives meaning to existence without revealing its purpose. People write endless songs and poems about it and yet it can be elusive with intention. "Nobody has love. Love has nobody" Captain Beefheart
 
Just one part I want to respond too, though all of it is very interesting...

Isn't the deads ignorance evidence for a knowledge filter or security system?

I don't see why. Living people are pretty ignorant and stupid. Why would dying change that? The security screen is one's own intellectual laziness, focus on petty desires, etc
 
I don't see why. Living people are pretty ignorant and stupid. Why would dying change that? The security screen is one's own intellectual laziness, focus on petty desires, etc

I will see your pov more readily when or if communication is not dependent on mediums. There is a distinct lack of curiosity surrounding us beyond this forum, certainly.

As for security, whatever tech "they" have, surely is quite dangerous in the wrong hands. No?
 
Dan, I know I may be accused of sounding arrogant, and I will cop that accusation - while denying it. These are not questions that have not been answered. There is an extensive body of literature on this theme.

I started off when I was 16 - with Paul Brunton's Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga. That was over 50 years ago when books on the subject were findable but scarce. So I read the established classics - now drowned by a cacophony of unimpressive commentators and speculators going to print with half-baked ideas for the sake of ego and whatever benefits arise from their problematic and temporary fame.

I got what was really a classic grounding in esoteric thought that prevailed from the late 1800s into the 1970s. So I got educated in Vedic thought, Buddhist metaphysics, Zen metaphysics, Qabala, Theosophy, Hermetics and the Western Mystery Tradition. I was a child of time really. There wasn't a lot that was easy to find back then. I am not saying my education was comprehensive or complete - but it was coherent and substantial - compared to what a person starting a similar quest over the past 2 decades might encounter. I know there contributors to this forum with similar backgrounds -you can pick those who have passed esoterica 101.

Now we are awash with published commentary that has no idea of the legacy that was/is a foundational body of knowledge that maybe they should have accessed before they went to print.

It is known "whether these big questions are fundamentally answerable or not." They have occupied the best minds of humanity for millennia. It is pretty much settled. Our challenge isn't to go back and re-litigate battles already won, but to take the next step in our evolution by rethinking how we understand our reality on the evidence we have accepted.

The fact that we are returning time and again to issues settled by good science demonstrates that the issue is not science, but culture. What is contested is not so much knowledge but how that knowledge influences culture -alters power relations, status and so on.

I say we accept the established cases -and if we do not know they are established, go back to confirm they are. That done, we can move on into new territory. Look Frank DeMarco's works for example - or Jane Roberts.

I have complained to Alex before that we are fighting battles already won, but I have since learned that while this may be technically true, it does not meat we are necessarily ready to move on. There is so much investment of self-identity in what we know to be failed models of reality, but we are still bonded to them. We have to be both courageous and compassionate in moving on. For some, that is a traumatic separation.
Thank you for the reply, Michael. These discussions are of great value to me.

My primary goals in these discussions are to explore how the context of my life and the purposes and goals that arise in my life seem to color my judgments. I also want to share these perspectives with other folks out there who may find them useful. It is not a goal of mine to try to persuade people that I somehow have THE ANSWERS. And I do not expect everybody to find my approach useful.

It is known "whether these big questions are fundamentally answerable or not." They have occupied the best minds of humanity for millennia. It is pretty much settled.

I can appreciate that in many contexts and for many purposes, the idea that the questions are settled is acceptable/useful. But in the context of my life and for my purposes, the questions have not been settled.

When I consider my purposes and goals, I tend to think the big one is “I want to live a good life.”

I suppose this is a fairly common goal today and probably has been throughout history.

I think many (not all) Christians, occultists, atheists, new agers, spiritualists, etc are able to have “good lives”.

The Christian church I grew up in claimed that non-believers would go to hell. No question about that. They also claimed that accepting Jesus was the way to have a good life while one is alive, too.

My exploration of context and purpose is an attempt to avoid that type of rigidness. I want to see what else we can do besides “the only way to have a good life is to have correct theories that are accurate in terms of FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH."

I am curious to know what you think about this question: Do you think people have to have accurate theories of life, the universe and everything in order to live a good life?

If it is the case that one can have a good life without “accurate theories of life, the universe and everything,” it begs the question, why do we spend time pondering these big questions on this forum if “correct answers” are not vital to the goal of living a good life?

For me, I think coming here is a chance to connect with people on the level of ideas; an offshoot of the basic human need for connection. I also tend to think that my desire to develop ideas and express ideas is wrapped up in the messy milieu of emotional energies, desires, and physical need that fuels much of my existence. Also, I will abashedly acknowledge that there is a part of me that thinks if I can just figure it all out, it will be like I've won the cosmic lottery--all my problems will disappear, all my suffering will cease, I will transcend all the messiness of this world. Personally, I want to move away from this vague desire for the cosmic lottery, but since I'm trying to understand my own context and goals, it seems necessary to acknowledge.

***

I have training and professional experience in the creative arts. Part of training in and practicing arts is about exploring the interplay between “form” and “function.”

Something I have been exploring lately is that argumentation as a form (or mode of discourse in academic terms) is not a particularly good form for exploring the notion that there may be no fundamental truth. To some degree, argumentation as a form generally presupposes that there is fundamental truth, which is a problem for certain contexts and purposes.

So for my exploration of the usefulness of the idea that there may be no absolute truth, I am shifting away from argumentation. This shift brings my energy away from trying to be “accurate in terms of some hypothetical absolute TRUTH”, and brings my energy to the question of how do I use these ideas and discussions in my efforts to live a good life.

***
Michael, since you mentioned sources, here is some background on where I am coming from. (Rorty is a primary source):


Some of these ideas are considered to have their roots in ancient Greek philosophy with thinkers like Pyrrho and the Skeptics. Some argue that Pyrrho picked up his philosophy from his travels to the east (what is now India, etc). Some contemporary philosophers (ie Richard Rorty) suggest that Plato's notion of Ideal Form essentially "won out" and has been the major influence on most western philosophy and theology for the past roughly 2000+ years. Rorty's work (primarily established in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 1979) is essentially a careful analysis of the more "modern" challenges to Plato's conceptions that Rorty traces through Descarte, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Nietszche, Peirce, James, Dewey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Sartre, etc. There are many, many book in the field of philosophy that explore these ideas, though it is unfortunely difficult to find well-written, readable books that look at how to apply these philosophical notions to the types of questions we explore here at Skeptiko. The American Pragmatist William James touches on pragmatism and mystical experience in his Varieties of Religious Experience. (You can see some of my other sources at my thread called Ways of Not Knowing.)
 
Last edited:
I found this interview interesting but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on non-duality and how it vibes with the idea of spiritual beings? Are they even important if there are just part of relative reality?
 
I will see your pov more readily when or if communication is not dependent on mediums. There is a distinct lack of curiosity surrounding us beyond this forum, certainly.
The implication of this is that you intend to trust the communications you yourself receive directly. That's the only way to get there without an intermediary.


I don't know what steps you have taken so far, or are planning to take. One of them is to keep a dream journal, pay attention to your dreams. You might ask questions before sleeping - ones which weigh heavily on your mind, not trivial stuff, and in time your dreams may give a response.

Other approaches you might try are via meditation, remain conscious rather than dreaming.

In my experience, the information or communication received is specific to my own circumstances - though sometimes universal truths emerge.
 
....IMO, not much is to be gained by talking to the dead other than confirming there is life after death and there is a definite risk if one continues to delve into it after the initial confirmation.

As in this life, who you talk to matters. I had conversations with a dead guy over about 3 years. He was may wiser and much more mature than me and I learned a heap of stuff. But higher level spirits are not for everyone to tap into any more than Professors are. We get what we need when we need it.

Unfortunately there has been a passion for talking to dead folk as a status. So I agree that in most cases the dead come to confirm to us that they are okay - both my parents did that. But then my mother came back a year later in a teaching role that changed my life. Fisher makes it clear that going beyond that message of comfort is dangerous.

In my case I didn't seek out the contact with the teacher - it sought me and my then girl friend out. This is typical, apparently. Its not safe to go seeking a dead teacher - you will get frauds, almost without exception. The real ones come looking for you.

IMO, spirits don't know much more about the hows and whys than living people do. An asshole in life is still and asshole after death and can - and will -deploy the same tactics against you that they did when alive, but now (after death) you can't see them and they can be very sneaky about impacting your mind and health.

This is true, and why trying to contact spirts for no good reason - and intent driving by pride - is dangerous. Inviting contact can lead to spirits attaching to your energy field and causing dire problems. Check out Spirit Releasement Therapy by William Baldwin. I noticed on Google that this field has exploded. I haven't been involved in this for ages, so I haven't kept up with what is happening. It is a growing field of practice by seriously sensible folk.

IMO, NDEs and new age religious training make people believe that everything is light and love after death + enlightenment. Maybe it is for some people, but certainly not for all by any means.

Yeah, a lot of the New Age stuff is fluffy BS. Its certainly not training though - just exposure. I started off as a New Age enthusiast but became deeply critical over time as my enthusiasm became tempered and my natural more disciplined approach came to the fore. That is reflective, I think, of the way ideas enter a culture and become lodge as mainstream. Tizzy enthusiasts run with an idea first and then sensible folk get curious, and over time the really good bits of the idea are incorporated into genuine intellectual endeavours. Its an evolutionary process.

We are not so progressed along the path of our attitudes toward spirit that the silly stuff has been forgotten. Its still dangerous. Our ancestors knew this and made provision to protect a community from careless contact with spirit - we don't have that tradition any more - and so are learning again from scratch, pretty much.
 
I will see your pov more readily when or if communication is not dependent on mediums. There is a distinct lack of curiosity surrounding us beyond this forum, certainly.

As for security, whatever tech "they" have, surely is quite dangerous in the wrong hands. No?

I don't think that mediums are required. How many people have "crisis apparitions" and that sort of thing? It's very common. One morning, my mother, who was as conservative as one can get, told me that her father had visited her and told her he had died and was ok. Sat right on the edge of her bed and said that - and we'd be getting a phone call any minute about it (which we did). Happens all the time to all kinds of people.

The deceased may move objects and do other things, like appear in dreams, to get our attention. Just we don't always pay attention, or we don't believe what we sense.
 
I found this interview interesting but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on non-duality and how it vibes with the idea of spiritual beings? Are they even important if there are just part of relative reality?

It seems like there's a wide range of ideas around "spiritual beings."

For example, it is my understanding that in some Buddhist traditions, different types of supernatural or psi-like experiences are called siddhis. It is acknowledged that they happen, but students are warned against focusing on them or seeking them out, as they are seen as distractions on the path toward enlightenment.

In the Christian sect I grew up in, "spirit guides" and other entities that were not specifically dead people, would mostly be seen as idols or even "satan in disguise" and so experiences with spirit guides and other entities were to be avoided.

Among many atheists/materialists, experiences of spiritual beings are considered to be little more than meaningless dreams, fantasies, or hallucinations. A common criticism of this kind of atheism/materialism is that it suggests that NOTHING matters and EVERYTHING is meaningless, which is also known as nihilism.

I haven't specifically researched non-dual approaches to supernatural experience, but I do have some loose thoughts about it. For me, any spiritual experiences or spiritual theories that suggest the normal, work-a-day world is meaningless are verging on nihilism. I would extend that to also include spiritual experience. In other words, routine, work-a-day experience AND supernatural experience are meaningful to me. So I am personally leery of spiritual perspectives that seek to make them unimportant or meaningless.

Please note that I also think experience and meaning are largely dependent on a person's context and personal purposes/needs, so I wouldn't argue that my ideas represent the final word on the matter.
 
I don't think that mediums are required. How many people have "crisis apparitions" and that sort of thing? It's very common. One morning, my mother, who was as conservative as one can get, told me that her father had visited her and told her he had died and was ok. Sat right on the edge of her bed and said that - and we'd be getting a phone call any minute about it (which we did). Happens all the time to all kinds of people.

The deceased may move objects and do other things, like appear in dreams, to get our attention. Just we don't always pay attention, or we don't believe what we sense.
I would prefer to direct your attention, if you are so inclined, towards what research questions can be explored, models built, and theories tested from those experiences?
 
The implication of this is that you intend to trust the communications you yourself receive directly. That's the only way to get there without an intermediary.


I don't know what steps you have taken so far, or are planning to take. One of them is to keep a dream journal, pay attention to your dreams. You might ask questions before sleeping - ones which weigh heavily on your mind, not trivial stuff, and in time your dreams may give a response.

Other approaches you might try are via meditation, remain conscious rather than dreaming.

In my experience, the information or communication received is specific to my own circumstances - though sometimes universal truths emerge.
So you rule out a fundamental building block of science - objectivity? Or am i seeing it wrong?

Even wondering if i am communicating well is part of understanding and thus this notion of 'objectivity'.


(in my opinion -- of course. I am just a guy)
 
I don't think that mediums are required. How many people have "crisis apparitions" and that sort of thing? It's very common. One morning, my mother, who was as conservative as one can get, told me that her father had visited her and told her he had died and was ok. Sat right on the edge of her bed and said that - and we'd be getting a phone call any minute about it (which we did). Happens all the time to all kinds of people.

Mediums are not required if folk dare attend to their own senses. I am no medium, but I am accustomed to heeding my inner senses because I allow that the dead will want to talk to me.

Reports of the dead talking to their loved ones are plentiful. Eric, your story about your mothers echoed endlessly, but little spoken of. My grandmother told me how a clock fell off the wall the moment may great grandfather died. But I was to tell nobody she told me. In the UK during WW1 there were many accounts of families being made aware of the death of a family member by signs and visitations. I have no doubt that is universal - I just don't have accounts from elsewhere.

So much depends on what we allow ourselves to be sensitive to -and what we allow might be real. My grandmother was a Protestant Christian, but she retained a 'pagan' Irish sensibility. My parents were not as responsive - hence my grandmother telling me, on the promise told nobody she had done so. Sometimes our believes force us to edit out sensations that are communications. I grew up in a Protestant faith that denied communication with the dead was okay. That was mainly my father's hardline influence - except when he died, at his funeral my then partner, a clairvoyant, saw him trying to attract the attention of the minister to tell him that things were not as he was saying. My partner doubled up in laughter and had to pretend it was grief so as not to offend the company.

So much depends on what we allow ourselves to know.
 
I don't think that mediums are required.
I don't know what you and Michael mean by 'required'.

Not everyone is psychically sensitive in any way (I'm not) and a reliable medium would be useful. Using Julie Beischel's technique, I guess it would be possible to grow an increasing supply of certified mediums.

David
 
I don't know what you and Michael mean by 'required'.

Not everyone is psychically sensitive in any way (I'm not) and a reliable medium would be useful. Using Julie Beischel's technique, I guess it would be possible to grow an increasing supply of certified mediums.

David
If a goal is to have mainstream acceptance, we cannot rely on mediums. As an analogy, lenr might be real but is it economically viable? How can society change if death never occurs, yet no one really believes this?

Religion says have faith, yet we americans spend a fortune 'fighting' death. In short even 80% reliability is amazing yet innefective for cultural change. Even if their was another institution doing what she does, also getting the same ball park results, still nothing would change (is my prediction)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top