Peter Fenwick NDE Video Quote
99 views
Skip to first unread message
RHC
Oct 11, 2014, 11:45:25 AM10/11/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
I am a Peter Fenwick groupie. If you haven't read "The Art of Dying" I highly recommend it. Right after reading it I discussed some of what the Fenwicks cover with the nurses on duty at the nursing station in the dementia ward that both my parents are in, and was stunned at how casually they confirmed having similar experiences. It was one of those moments when you could have pushed me over with a feather. Its one thing to read about end of life experiences, its quite another to have 4 nurses, practically randomly selected, stand there and tell you stories while casually going about their business.
Anyway this is a one minute youtube clip succinctly demolishes the residual consciousness explanation of NDEs.
Here is the whole presentation:
Here are more videos from that conference:
Very useful tool alert.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 12, 2014, 5:15:05 AM10/12/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the information on Fenwick. I have ordered his book. I have read quite a few books of this kind and a lot on NDE's, and have a sense that many, perhaps most NDE's are not so much about being really dead, but about an experience of mind and brain and body which opens one up to altered realities and other dimensions.
After hundreds of books on the topic over many decades, I begin to wonder if dying is not actually much simpler than we might believe. Our 'knowledge' of it comes from religious and spiritual teachings which are largely conjecture and assumption and from NDE's, more so in recent years. However, books written as 'channelled' or 'revealed' by the dead to the living, generally has the process of death and life in a next world, much simpler, easier and more recognisable than either religion, spiritual teaching or NDE's would have it.
I tend to think that NDE's are more akin to those drug-induced experiences from LSD or ayahuasca, but this too is just conjecture. But it fits with my instincts and reasonings from much reading. But it is a big topic.
After hundreds of books on the topic over many decades, I begin to wonder if dying is not actually much simpler than we might believe. Our 'knowledge' of it comes from religious and spiritual teachings which are largely conjecture and assumption and from NDE's, more so in recent years. However, books written as 'channelled' or 'revealed' by the dead to the living, generally has the process of death and life in a next world, much simpler, easier and more recognisable than either religion, spiritual teaching or NDE's would have it.
I tend to think that NDE's are more akin to those drug-induced experiences from LSD or ayahuasca, but this too is just conjecture. But it fits with my instincts and reasonings from much reading. But it is a big topic.
George
Oct 12, 2014, 5:52:04 AM10/12/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Many of them sound like switching into another dream or, more accurately, a bit like Robert Munroe's more impressive jaunts into other worlds. Whether you enter a world of your own or attach to another world or get "reset and reborn" may be connected to your expectations and beliefs? Do you adopt or inhabit another "I"? I'm not so up on accounts as to be able to judge.
A further question: Why am I so "attached" to the experience of George, if all this is the case?
Excerpt from my favourite bit of 'Journeys out of Body' (p50-ish onwards, depending on edition):
"Locale III, in summary, proved to be a physical-matter world almost identical to our own. The natural environment is the same. There are trees, houses, cities, people, artifacts, and all the appurtenances of a reasonably civilized society. There are homes, families, businesses, and people work for a living. There are roads on which vehicles travel. There are railroads and trains. Now for the "almost." At first, the thought was that Locale III was no more than some part of our world unknown to me and those others concerned. It had all the appearances of being so. However, more careful study showed that it can be neither the present nor the past of our physical-matter world.
The scientific development is inconsistent. There are no electrical devices whatsoever. Electricity, electromagnetics, and anything so related are non-existent. No electric lights, telephones, radios, television, or electric power. No internal combustion, gasoline, or oil were found as power sources. Yet mechanical power is used. Careful examination of one of the locomotives that pulled a string of old-fashioned-looking passenger cars showed it to be driven by a steam engine. The cars appeared to be made of wood, the locomotive of metal, but of a different shape than our now obsolete types. The track gauge was much smaller than our standard track spacing, smaller than our narrow-gauge mountain railways.
I observed the servicing of one of the locomotives in detail. Neither wood nor coal was used as a thermal source to produce steam. Instead, large vatlike containers were carefully slid from under the boiler, detached, and rolled by small cart into a building with massive thick walls. The containers had pipelike protuberances extending from the top. Men working behind shields performed the removal, casually cautious, and did not relax their automatic vigilance until the containers were safely in the building and the door closed. The contents were "hot," either through heat or radiation. The actions of the technicians all seemed to indicate the latter. The streets and roads are different, again principally in size. The "lane" on which vehicles travel is nearly twice as wide as ours.
Their version of our automobile is much larger. Even the smallest has a single bench seat that will hold five to six people abreast The standard unit has only one fixed seat, that of the driver. Others are much like living-room chairs, placed around a compartment that measures some fifteen by twenty feet. Wheels are used, but without inflated tires. Steering is done by a single horizontal bar. Motive power is contained somewhere in the rear. Their movement is not very fast, at something like fifteen to twenty miles per hour. Traffic is not heavy. Self-powered vehicles exist in the form of a four-wheeled platform which is steered by the feet acting upon the front wheels. A mechanism pumped by the arms transfers the energy to the rear wheels, much like the children's "rowing wagons" of some years back. These are used for short distances. Habits and customs are not like ours. What little has been gleaned implies a historical background with different events, names, places, and dates. Yet, while the stage of man's evolution (the conscious mind translates the inhabitants as men) seems to be identical, technical and social evolution are not completely the same.
The major discovery came soon after I gathered the courage for extended expeditions into Locale III. In spite of early indications, the people there were not aware of my presence until I met and "merged" temporarily and involuntarily with one who can only be described as the "I" who lives "there." The only explanation I can think of is that I, fully conscious of living and being "here," was attracted to and began mo-mentarily to inhabit the body of a person "there," much like myself. When this took place-and it began to be an automatic process when I went to Locale III-I simply took over "his" body. There was no awareness of his mental presence when I temporarily displaced him. My knowledge of him and his activities and his past came from his family, and what was evidently his brain memory-bank. Though I knew that I was not he, I could feel objectively the emotional patterns of his past. I have wondered what embarrassment I have caused him as a result of the periods of amnesia created by my intrusions. Some must have brought him much distress. Here is his life:
"I" There-at the first intrusion, was a rather lonely man. He was not particularly successful in his field (architect-contractor), and not too gregarious. He came of what might be classified as a low-income group, and succeeded in going to the equivalent of a minor college. He spent much of his early career in a large city in an ordinary job. He lived on the second floor of a rooming house, and took a bus to work. It was a strange city to him, and he made few friends. (The bus, incidentally, was very wide, seating eight abreast, and seats rose behind the driver in successively higher tiers, so that all could see the road ahead.)
My first intrusion caught him just as he was getting off the bus. The driver looked at him suspiciously when I tried to pay a fare. It seems that none is charged. The next intrusion came at an emotional crisis. "I" There met Lea, a wealthy young woman with two children, a boy and a girl, both under four years of age. Lea was a sad, wistful, and somewhat preoccupied person, who seemed to have experienced some major tragedy in her life. This had some relationship to her former husband, but was not clear. "I" There met her quite accidentally, and was deeply attracted to her. The two children found in him a great companion. Lea appeared only mildly interested at this first meeting. Her greatest response lay in his attention to and warmth for the children.
A short time later an intrusion occurred just as Lea and "I" There had announced to friends-her friends-that they were going to be "married" (this has a slightly different connotation). There was much consternation among the friends, chiefly due to the fact that it had been only thirty days (?) since some major event had occurred in Lea's life (divorce, her husband's death, or some physical debilitation). "I" There was still greatly attracted, and Lea was still sad and introspective. A later intrusion came when Lea and "I" There were living in a house in a semipastoral surrounding. The house sat on a low hill, had long rectangular windows, and very wide eaves much like those of a pagoda. The railroad curved around the hill some three hundred yards in the distance, the tracks coming in from the right in a straight line, then across the front of the hill, then around to the back and to the left There was deep green grass from the steps of the house, down over the roll of the hill. Behind the house, "I" There had an office, a one-room building where he worked. On this occasion, Lea entered the office and came over to the desk just as I had replaced "I" There. "The workmen want to borrow some of your tools,' she said. I looked at her blankly. I was not sure what to say, so I asked her what workmen. "The men working on the road, of course." She had not yet sensed anything wrong.
Before I realized what effect it would have, I said there were no men working on the road. With this, she looked at me intently, with a growing suspicion. I was thoroughly unsure of what to do next, so I left his body and returned through the hole. Another eventful intrusion came when "I" There had set up his laboratory. He was not fully qualified to perform research, but he had decided he could make some kind of new discoveries. He had (perhaps with the assistance of Lea's wealth) taken a huge storage building, divided it internally into small rooms, and was conducting some kind of experi-ments. In the middle of one, I displaced him in his body, but was unable to calculate what was next in his routine. Just then, Lea came in, with visitors, principally to show the kind of work he had achieved in the renovated building. I (in "I" There's body) stood there unable to speak when Lea asked me to tell them of the work I had been doing. Somewhat embarrassed, Lea led the couple out into another room. I hesitated when perhaps "I" There would have followed. I tried to "feel" any pattern of activity that he might have been doing. The best I could get was that he had been trying to develop new forms of theatrical entertainment, designing theater stages, lighting, and sets, all in an attempt to make watching a play a strongly subjective experience. With only this partial success in his recall, I left his body when I heard them returning so as to avoid further complicating his life.
A vacation in the mountains was under way at another intrusion point. "I" There, Lea, and the two children were riding along a winding mountain road, each on the self-propelled vehicle described elsewhere. I "took over' inadvertently just as they were reaching the bottom of one hill and had started up another. New to the device, I tried to make it go up the next hill, and soon rolled off the road and into a small pile of dirt. The rest waited while I tried to get back on the road, and I muttered that there were better ways to get around than this. This triggered something in Lea, and she suddenly became quiet. Why, I didn't know. (I'm sure "I" There did.) I tried to tell her that I was not who she thought, then realized that this was only making it worse. I "left," returning to the hole and the physical body.
In later intrusions, "I" There and Lea no longer lived together. He had met with some success, but some action of his alienated her. Alone, he has thought of her constantly, and deeply regretted the weakness that made him displease her. He met her casually once, in a large city, and pleaded with her to let him visit her. She told him she would let him do so, and see how things worked out. She lived in the equivalent of an apartment, on the third floor of a residential building. He promised to come. Unfortunately, "I" There lost or forgot the address she gave him, and at the last intrusion, was a lonely and frustrated man. He was sure that Lea would interpret his loss of the address as indifference on his part and another example of his instability. He was working, but was spending his idle time trying to find Lea and the children.
What can be made of all this? In view of the less than idyllic circumstances, it scarcely qualifies as an escape from reality via the unconscious. Nor is it the type of life one might select to enjoy vicariously. One can only speculate, and such speculation of itself must consider concepts unacceptable to present-day science. However, the "dual but different" life activity may lend a clue to the "where" of Locale III. The most important assumption is that Locale III and Locale I (Here-Now) are not the same. This is based upon the differences in scientific development. Locale III is not more advanced, perhaps even less so. There is no time in our known history where science was at the Locale III stage. If Locale III is neither the known past nor the present, and not the probable future of Locale I, what is it?"
A further question: Why am I so "attached" to the experience of George, if all this is the case?
Excerpt from my favourite bit of 'Journeys out of Body' (p50-ish onwards, depending on edition):
"Locale III, in summary, proved to be a physical-matter world almost identical to our own. The natural environment is the same. There are trees, houses, cities, people, artifacts, and all the appurtenances of a reasonably civilized society. There are homes, families, businesses, and people work for a living. There are roads on which vehicles travel. There are railroads and trains. Now for the "almost." At first, the thought was that Locale III was no more than some part of our world unknown to me and those others concerned. It had all the appearances of being so. However, more careful study showed that it can be neither the present nor the past of our physical-matter world.
The scientific development is inconsistent. There are no electrical devices whatsoever. Electricity, electromagnetics, and anything so related are non-existent. No electric lights, telephones, radios, television, or electric power. No internal combustion, gasoline, or oil were found as power sources. Yet mechanical power is used. Careful examination of one of the locomotives that pulled a string of old-fashioned-looking passenger cars showed it to be driven by a steam engine. The cars appeared to be made of wood, the locomotive of metal, but of a different shape than our now obsolete types. The track gauge was much smaller than our standard track spacing, smaller than our narrow-gauge mountain railways.
I observed the servicing of one of the locomotives in detail. Neither wood nor coal was used as a thermal source to produce steam. Instead, large vatlike containers were carefully slid from under the boiler, detached, and rolled by small cart into a building with massive thick walls. The containers had pipelike protuberances extending from the top. Men working behind shields performed the removal, casually cautious, and did not relax their automatic vigilance until the containers were safely in the building and the door closed. The contents were "hot," either through heat or radiation. The actions of the technicians all seemed to indicate the latter. The streets and roads are different, again principally in size. The "lane" on which vehicles travel is nearly twice as wide as ours.
Their version of our automobile is much larger. Even the smallest has a single bench seat that will hold five to six people abreast The standard unit has only one fixed seat, that of the driver. Others are much like living-room chairs, placed around a compartment that measures some fifteen by twenty feet. Wheels are used, but without inflated tires. Steering is done by a single horizontal bar. Motive power is contained somewhere in the rear. Their movement is not very fast, at something like fifteen to twenty miles per hour. Traffic is not heavy. Self-powered vehicles exist in the form of a four-wheeled platform which is steered by the feet acting upon the front wheels. A mechanism pumped by the arms transfers the energy to the rear wheels, much like the children's "rowing wagons" of some years back. These are used for short distances. Habits and customs are not like ours. What little has been gleaned implies a historical background with different events, names, places, and dates. Yet, while the stage of man's evolution (the conscious mind translates the inhabitants as men) seems to be identical, technical and social evolution are not completely the same.
The major discovery came soon after I gathered the courage for extended expeditions into Locale III. In spite of early indications, the people there were not aware of my presence until I met and "merged" temporarily and involuntarily with one who can only be described as the "I" who lives "there." The only explanation I can think of is that I, fully conscious of living and being "here," was attracted to and began mo-mentarily to inhabit the body of a person "there," much like myself. When this took place-and it began to be an automatic process when I went to Locale III-I simply took over "his" body. There was no awareness of his mental presence when I temporarily displaced him. My knowledge of him and his activities and his past came from his family, and what was evidently his brain memory-bank. Though I knew that I was not he, I could feel objectively the emotional patterns of his past. I have wondered what embarrassment I have caused him as a result of the periods of amnesia created by my intrusions. Some must have brought him much distress. Here is his life:
"I" There-at the first intrusion, was a rather lonely man. He was not particularly successful in his field (architect-contractor), and not too gregarious. He came of what might be classified as a low-income group, and succeeded in going to the equivalent of a minor college. He spent much of his early career in a large city in an ordinary job. He lived on the second floor of a rooming house, and took a bus to work. It was a strange city to him, and he made few friends. (The bus, incidentally, was very wide, seating eight abreast, and seats rose behind the driver in successively higher tiers, so that all could see the road ahead.)
My first intrusion caught him just as he was getting off the bus. The driver looked at him suspiciously when I tried to pay a fare. It seems that none is charged. The next intrusion came at an emotional crisis. "I" There met Lea, a wealthy young woman with two children, a boy and a girl, both under four years of age. Lea was a sad, wistful, and somewhat preoccupied person, who seemed to have experienced some major tragedy in her life. This had some relationship to her former husband, but was not clear. "I" There met her quite accidentally, and was deeply attracted to her. The two children found in him a great companion. Lea appeared only mildly interested at this first meeting. Her greatest response lay in his attention to and warmth for the children.
A short time later an intrusion occurred just as Lea and "I" There had announced to friends-her friends-that they were going to be "married" (this has a slightly different connotation). There was much consternation among the friends, chiefly due to the fact that it had been only thirty days (?) since some major event had occurred in Lea's life (divorce, her husband's death, or some physical debilitation). "I" There was still greatly attracted, and Lea was still sad and introspective. A later intrusion came when Lea and "I" There were living in a house in a semipastoral surrounding. The house sat on a low hill, had long rectangular windows, and very wide eaves much like those of a pagoda. The railroad curved around the hill some three hundred yards in the distance, the tracks coming in from the right in a straight line, then across the front of the hill, then around to the back and to the left There was deep green grass from the steps of the house, down over the roll of the hill. Behind the house, "I" There had an office, a one-room building where he worked. On this occasion, Lea entered the office and came over to the desk just as I had replaced "I" There. "The workmen want to borrow some of your tools,' she said. I looked at her blankly. I was not sure what to say, so I asked her what workmen. "The men working on the road, of course." She had not yet sensed anything wrong.
Before I realized what effect it would have, I said there were no men working on the road. With this, she looked at me intently, with a growing suspicion. I was thoroughly unsure of what to do next, so I left his body and returned through the hole. Another eventful intrusion came when "I" There had set up his laboratory. He was not fully qualified to perform research, but he had decided he could make some kind of new discoveries. He had (perhaps with the assistance of Lea's wealth) taken a huge storage building, divided it internally into small rooms, and was conducting some kind of experi-ments. In the middle of one, I displaced him in his body, but was unable to calculate what was next in his routine. Just then, Lea came in, with visitors, principally to show the kind of work he had achieved in the renovated building. I (in "I" There's body) stood there unable to speak when Lea asked me to tell them of the work I had been doing. Somewhat embarrassed, Lea led the couple out into another room. I hesitated when perhaps "I" There would have followed. I tried to "feel" any pattern of activity that he might have been doing. The best I could get was that he had been trying to develop new forms of theatrical entertainment, designing theater stages, lighting, and sets, all in an attempt to make watching a play a strongly subjective experience. With only this partial success in his recall, I left his body when I heard them returning so as to avoid further complicating his life.
A vacation in the mountains was under way at another intrusion point. "I" There, Lea, and the two children were riding along a winding mountain road, each on the self-propelled vehicle described elsewhere. I "took over' inadvertently just as they were reaching the bottom of one hill and had started up another. New to the device, I tried to make it go up the next hill, and soon rolled off the road and into a small pile of dirt. The rest waited while I tried to get back on the road, and I muttered that there were better ways to get around than this. This triggered something in Lea, and she suddenly became quiet. Why, I didn't know. (I'm sure "I" There did.) I tried to tell her that I was not who she thought, then realized that this was only making it worse. I "left," returning to the hole and the physical body.
In later intrusions, "I" There and Lea no longer lived together. He had met with some success, but some action of his alienated her. Alone, he has thought of her constantly, and deeply regretted the weakness that made him displease her. He met her casually once, in a large city, and pleaded with her to let him visit her. She told him she would let him do so, and see how things worked out. She lived in the equivalent of an apartment, on the third floor of a residential building. He promised to come. Unfortunately, "I" There lost or forgot the address she gave him, and at the last intrusion, was a lonely and frustrated man. He was sure that Lea would interpret his loss of the address as indifference on his part and another example of his instability. He was working, but was spending his idle time trying to find Lea and the children.
What can be made of all this? In view of the less than idyllic circumstances, it scarcely qualifies as an escape from reality via the unconscious. Nor is it the type of life one might select to enjoy vicariously. One can only speculate, and such speculation of itself must consider concepts unacceptable to present-day science. However, the "dual but different" life activity may lend a clue to the "where" of Locale III. The most important assumption is that Locale III and Locale I (Here-Now) are not the same. This is based upon the differences in scientific development. Locale III is not more advanced, perhaps even less so. There is no time in our known history where science was at the Locale III stage. If Locale III is neither the known past nor the present, and not the probable future of Locale I, what is it?"
Peter Jones
Oct 12, 2014, 7:16:27 AM10/12/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Hi Roslyn. I don't think NDEs give us any reason to doubt the religious explanation. The trouble is only that it is difficult to pin down what it is, and it is not immediately obvious that there is any concensus. I would say that Bernardo's explanation actually is most common religious explanation.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 12, 2014, 7:36:08 AM10/12/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Hi Peter, I did not clarify and I should have done. It was a bit of a throw-in as today is busy and required more reflection.
What I really meant to say was that I feel and think that there are extreme views on the issue from it's all just in the brain, mechanical, to, it is an experience of the next world, and the truth lies in the middle. In other words I think both extreme positions get some things right but are both a bit off course because of agendas.
I do believe there are physical effects involved but I also believe there are non-physical effects involved. What I don't necessarily believe is that the individual experiences being really dead - an interim dimension perhaps for some, not all, but not actually dead and then returned to life.
I do believe though they offer invaluable insights into brain function, altered states, other dimensions and our non-material selves.
Atwater is one of the most interesting because of greater objectivity.
http://pmhatwater.hypermart.net/
What I really meant to say was that I feel and think that there are extreme views on the issue from it's all just in the brain, mechanical, to, it is an experience of the next world, and the truth lies in the middle. In other words I think both extreme positions get some things right but are both a bit off course because of agendas.
I do believe there are physical effects involved but I also believe there are non-physical effects involved. What I don't necessarily believe is that the individual experiences being really dead - an interim dimension perhaps for some, not all, but not actually dead and then returned to life.
I do believe though they offer invaluable insights into brain function, altered states, other dimensions and our non-material selves.
Atwater is one of the most interesting because of greater objectivity.
http://pmhatwater.hypermart.net/
On Sunday, 12 October 2014 13:16:27 UTC+2, Peter Jones wrote:
Peter Jones
Oct 12, 2014, 8:34:37 AM10/12/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Fair enough. I was just defending religion. What we often call the 'religious explanation' is a fantasy that we make up, or, that is to say, an interpretation of the scriptures. It often easy to debunk these fantasies, but never easy to debunk the original explanation from which they derive.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 13, 2014, 3:10:36 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
What we often call religious explanation is a fantasy because it is a literal interpretation of that which was meant to be metaphorical. Reading symbolically changes things greatly. As Jung said, symbol is the lost language of the soul. I believe that when we live our lives with an understanding of the language of symbol and metaphor we live them more completely and less destructively.
Bernardo
Oct 13, 2014, 3:54:01 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Ditto!
RHC
Oct 13, 2014, 9:23:44 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Roslyn do you think there are truly 'objective' symbols? That is symbols that mean the same thing or domain of things consistently for everyone or do you think that all symbolic meaning is completely subjective and subjectively contextual? Or something in between?
George
Oct 13, 2014, 9:29:47 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
And if some symbols have become "objective" is it a matter of symbolic use frequency - of habit formation. For instance, like a "sigil" that has been referred to by so many people it becomes stronger?
Roslyn Ross
Oct 13, 2014, 10:03:55 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
There are symbols, as in archetypes, which are universal to all for understandable reasons. Mythology has long been an interest of mine and the commonalities between cultures in terms of symbols, both developed and primitive cultures, is clear. But I also believe that there is personal subjectivity so I think there is objective, and subjective and something in between.
I think this is best explained with dream interpretation, something which has interested me for a long time and something I often do for friends and family. The first qualifier I make is that any symbol is most importantly understood by the dreamer because while there is say, an objective symbolism for 'cat' which is shared between cultures, there will also be a subjective and personal 'cat' symbolism or meaning.
Dreams are often quite literal, and very witty with all sorts of play on words, symbol and form and so erring on the side of caution would always have the dreamer's interpretation more likely to be right. Having said that, one can objectively interpret a dream, using universal, unconscious and conscious, symbols and have it resonate and add depth for the dreamer.
I think this is best explained with dream interpretation, something which has interested me for a long time and something I often do for friends and family. The first qualifier I make is that any symbol is most importantly understood by the dreamer because while there is say, an objective symbolism for 'cat' which is shared between cultures, there will also be a subjective and personal 'cat' symbolism or meaning.
Dreams are often quite literal, and very witty with all sorts of play on words, symbol and form and so erring on the side of caution would always have the dreamer's interpretation more likely to be right. Having said that, one can objectively interpret a dream, using universal, unconscious and conscious, symbols and have it resonate and add depth for the dreamer.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 13, 2014, 10:05:11 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
There is a chicken and egg quality to it George. Did archetypal energies exist or were they created? Probably both. But I certainly believe that symbols, certainly those which seem to resonate universally, are further empowered by subjective belief.
George
Oct 13, 2014, 10:19:24 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
I like what you say about a mix of the personal, and the impersonal.
Over time, perhaps our personal imagery becomes shared, grows in power, becomes universal in subjective minds, then is rendered objectively eventually; over time these symbols become enfolded into everything, and accessible everywhere, spontaneously or intentionally.
It's great to play with in lucid dreams, etc.
RHC
Oct 13, 2014, 11:59:54 AM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
>And if some symbols have become "objective" is it a matter of symbolic use frequency - of habit formation.
>Over time, perhaps our personal imagery becomes shared, grows in power, becomes universal in subjective minds, then is rendered objectively eventually; over time these symbols become enfolded into everything, and accessible everywhere, spontaneously or intentionally.
Very interesting idea; reminds me of Sheldrake. Also it starts to address the question of how do symbols become symbols. And along those lines is the set of archetypes set in stone, never to be added to, part of the foundations of this reality?
George
Oct 13, 2014, 12:01:24 PM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
That's my implicit thinking, yep!
Sciborg2 Sciborg2
Oct 13, 2014, 12:54:02 PM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the Monroe quote George. If M@L is at the root of all space-time and natural "laws", it would make sense that Idealists could posit their own Multiverse.
Not the silly work around some physicists have used to get around fine tuning, but rather M@L creating an infinite (though not necessarily exhaustive) variety of realms with different laws.
Heck, for all we know our dreams spin off into realms of their own. I recall once comforting my fellow people in a dream I was having, that when I woke up a greater Mind that had dreamed me into being would preserve them...
Not the silly work around some physicists have used to get around fine tuning, but rather M@L creating an infinite (though not necessarily exhaustive) variety of realms with different laws.
Heck, for all we know our dreams spin off into realms of their own. I recall once comforting my fellow people in a dream I was having, that when I woke up a greater Mind that had dreamed me into being would preserve them...
George
Oct 13, 2014, 1:41:03 PM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Heck, for all we know our dreams spin off into realms of their own. I recall once comforting my fellow people in a dream I was having, that when I woke up a greater Mind that had dreamed me into being would preserve them...
What a nice passage.
I have often thought of my 'personal' dreams as being worlds (universes) that I had seeded. Even the process of sparkles becoming fragments becoming images becoming an environment feels like the spawning and creation of a universe. I see no reason why these cannot persist once I withdraw my own viewpoint, because there are not actually within a personal space anyway - rather, it is a world like this universe but which happens to have no 'habits' established yet, therefore it is highly responsive to my intention, or implication. In this sense it is always a 'co-creation' between the small self perspective and the larger mind which it is a "part of" really.
'Locale III', then, is a persistent world, perhaps created originally by a dreamer just like one of us, with each of its inhabits in effect seeded fragments from that dreamer. This world too, 'Locale I', is one of these. None of the universes are spatially located, or located within space; there is no limit to their number or container within which they must reside.
What are "we" then? A fragment of the unlimited stuff, mind. A perspective, if we don't identify too strongly with the apparent body and thoughts. From there, we are free truly. Eventually losing our anchor to this dream environment, having become aware of its nature and our own, we will be free to attach or re-seed? But we can loosen that anchor now, without dying.
If you experiment with your own life, in this 'dream', you can discover you have amazing influence, within the boundaries of the world's established habits. This is actually a very responsive place, it seems. However, not with personal Will alone; it must be a co-conspiracy if there is to be any power in your efforts. This dream really does like to help a man out, when it can, and if he'll let it. This, though, is in danger of sounding too esoteric to the general reader of course, but...
The hope of idealism is that it is a way to at least give people a taste of the freedom, the personal openness that comes from the sense of support of that worldview - and perhaps give people access to themselves again.
George
Oct 13, 2014, 1:47:06 PM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
"...with each of its inhabitants in effect seeded fragments from that dreamer..."
RHC
Oct 13, 2014, 2:36:41 PM10/13/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
George thats a great Robert Moore quote. Reads like good science fiction. I have to read his book.
I think NDEs are probably what experiencers think they are, transitions out of life to another or what happens to many people at the beginning of the process of dying, simply because thats what 90% of them are convinced they are. Your response might be that well people also think they see Jesus or whatever culturally relevant religious figure matters to them or at least has been culturally programmed into them. But I think there is a category difference there. The basic experience is death, the symbolic experience varies depending on the individual. The commonalities across experiences might apply to both categories.
The other aspect of NDEs that make them unique is the follow up impact they have on peoples lives. My understanding is that many if not most experiencers essentially begin new and often drastically different lives after there experience. I wonder if this is true of other transcendental experiences? I would think so.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 14, 2014, 2:46:27 AM10/14/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Yes, well put.
Roslyn Ross
Oct 14, 2014, 2:58:55 AM10/14/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
I read a book long ago, supposedly written by someone channelling for his dead son, I think, which offered an explanation which I felt and thought made sense, that when people die, because the power of mind to create is greater in the next world, or perhaps the real world, that people do see what they expect to see, if they hold fixed beliefs about what they will see anyway. So Christians get Jesus and all that fuss and Moslems get what they expect etc. etc. But I do wonder about this because the other thing often said is that people are reunited with family and friends and patently not everyone believes the same things so it could get messy.
If it happened, it would, by necessity, be shot-lived. I increasingly come to believe that whatever comes after physical death it is simpler than many expect - after all kids do it - and more familiar than most expect.
Yes, NDE's tend to lose fear of death, understandably, and most return saying that there is no separation and religion divides and that the most important thing is to live one's life with love and to the best of one's ability.
It is interesting of course because a world beyond the material would be different how? I guess there would be no death and no physical pain although of course, pain is also more mind than body. So, if we lived, as returned NDE's seem to do, with no fear of death, seeing it as merely stepping out of the body and back into the world from which we came, where there are no physical challenges, how much more joy would we all experience? A lot I believe. It seems to me though that emotions must still be with us and feelings, albeit mental, not physical.
If it happened, it would, by necessity, be shot-lived. I increasingly come to believe that whatever comes after physical death it is simpler than many expect - after all kids do it - and more familiar than most expect.
Yes, NDE's tend to lose fear of death, understandably, and most return saying that there is no separation and religion divides and that the most important thing is to live one's life with love and to the best of one's ability.
It is interesting of course because a world beyond the material would be different how? I guess there would be no death and no physical pain although of course, pain is also more mind than body. So, if we lived, as returned NDE's seem to do, with no fear of death, seeing it as merely stepping out of the body and back into the world from which we came, where there are no physical challenges, how much more joy would we all experience? A lot I believe. It seems to me though that emotions must still be with us and feelings, albeit mental, not physical.
George
Oct 14, 2014, 4:30:32 AM10/14/14
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
The other aspect of NDEs that make them unique is the follow up impact they have on peoples lives. My understanding is that many if not most experiencers essentially begin new and often drastically different lives after there experience. I wonder if this is true of other transcendental experiences? I would think so.
I think people realise they are having a human experience, rather than actually being that physical person. If you suddenly realise this world is, basically, a sort of dream - even if its properties are 'hard', that you are a witness rather than a rock - that's got to change your perspective, particularly as regards your 'daily fear'.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages