Bruce, I started reading "The Cosmic Game" by Grof--report to follow
Matt Rouge
Bruce Siegel
no one
Bruce Siegel
no one
Matt Rouge
no one
Matt Rouge
Bruce Siegel
It's one of those truths that's hidden in plain sight. Birth is not just stressful for the mother, it's incredibly difficult for the fetus. And what we experience as we're being born can affect us profoundly for the rest of our lives.
If the concept makes you uneasy, it's not surprising!
no one
Matt Rouge
I was highly impressed about the guy who saw the pig goddess in his vision when neither he nor Grof himself had ever heard of this mythological figure.
Like no one, I am not sure about the "perinatal realm." My mind is open, though.
So far, so great!
Bruce Siegel
Matt Rouge
no one
Matt Rouge
Page 44: "Other descriptions stress the immense desire of the Universal Mind to know itself and to explore and experience its full potential. This can only be done by exteriorization of all its latent possibilities in the form of a concrete creative act."
I think/feel that this is basically correct.
Bruce Siegel
Glad you're getting deeper into it, Matt. The chapter you're on is where all the fun begins! But I'm a little perplexed that you have no problems with it.
On page 50, Grof describes the partitioning that I've made constant reference to in our conversations. He says that the One--all that is--divides itself into countless beings so that it can (as you said) experience its full potential.
And on the top of page 51 he says that this partitioning happens through a mechanism like forgetting (which I've also discussed).
So the cosmos BEGINS with the One. That's what's fundamental. It doesn't begin with small units of information (or whatever) gradually coalescing into a larger Entity, but rather the reverse--the One limitless being creates smaller units out of itself.
So this is the scenario I've broached with you many times, but you've always said that such a picture sounds too much like what you call a "top-down" God, a concept you strongly dislike.
So what gives?
Matt Rouge
||On page 50, Grof describes the partitioning that I've made constant reference to in our conversations. He says that the One--all that is--divides itself into countless beings so that it can (as you said) experience its full potential.
And on the top of page 51 he says that this partitioning happens through a mechanism like forgetting (which I've also discussed).||
Yep, just getting into this. I may or may not start disagreeing!
||So the cosmos BEGINS with the One. That's what's fundamental. It doesn't begin with small units of information (or whatever) gradually coalescing into a larger Entity, but rather the reverse--the One limitless being creates smaller units out of itself.||
Wait a sec. According to Grof, the cosmos begings with the One AND/OR/BOTH Void. I think this is a key point. In our debates, I think you have emphasized the primacy of the One, as you have here. I will have to see if Grof more or less drops the Void in the pages to come, but it is a key element of his explanation of the origins of things thus far.
||So this is the scenario I've broached with you many times, but you've always said that such a picture sounds too much like what you call a "top-down" God, a concept you strongly dislike.||
I'll have to see how Grof puts things and to what degree you and Grof seem to me to be on the same page. It's not a given that you and Grof are in perfect accord!
What I don't think happens is that the One thinks everything out says, "M'kay, let's partition thus." Rather, I think the partitioning is the way in which the One comes into being. IOW, there is Void, and through activities infinite in scope, of which we are a part, the Void becomes the One. Paradoxically, since ultimately these activities are outside time, the One as a complete entity is also able to guide the activities. Hence Void and Plenum "influence" each other so to speak.
I may end up disagreeing on whether it is actually "forgetting" that is taking place. It may be a rising out of Void in which there is no memory to begin with. Or it could be that, seen from another aspect, it is equivalent to forgetting.
More soon!
Bruce Siegel
"I think the partitioning is the way in which the One comes into being"
If you find anything in the book that suggests that scenario, let me know. It's the opposite of everything I remember reading in Grof and other sources I trust, as well as the opposite of my own experiences in altered states.
One of my clearest memories from one of my deepest journeys is seeing God's head "explode" into the myriad entities that make up manifest creation. It was clear to me that I was seeing a pictorial metaphor for God imagining the universe into being.
Matt Rouge
Matt Rouge
Bruce Siegel
Matt, I agree with you that God is not a top-down God. I think the phrase gives an inaccurate impression of the true state of affairs because it implies that God is a separate, detached, authority ruling over his subjects, who are below him.
To me, God is both the top and the bottom. He creates the universe out of his own being by sending offshoots of himself outwards. God is both the source and the offshoots, who are in a state of temporary amnesia about their identity as pieces of God.
This is what Grof describes on pages 50 and 51. And I think you'll agree that "top-down" doesn't give an accurate description of this scenario.
As to the Void, you're right that on page 32 Grof does speak of two fundamentals: creative Cosmic Consciousness and the Void. But he goes on to say that some of his sources "experienced these two aspects of the Absolute simultaneously, identifying with the Cosmic Consciousness and, at the same time, recognizing its essential voidness."
And I myself go with that interpretation, because that's been my experience in altered states, too. At no point did I experience a Void that seemed separate from Source. Rather, it seemed to me that the entire universe was essentially formless--a vast sea of limitless potential--which I can imagine some would describe as a void.
So God is not built up from the void by assembling bits and pieces of information (as you and Michael suggest), but rather God is the fundamental ground of being, not truly reducible to any separate components, though God does temporarily partition itself into separate units for the sake of . . . adventure, exploration, interest, getting to know itself----all those good things Grof mentions.
Make sense? And can you see how Grof's perspective differs from what you and Michael describe?
I'm really glad you're reading this book because it makes it easier for me to talk about this stuff with you!
Matt Rouge
Thanks! I don't really disagree much with what you're saying. I think it will come down to subtleties and takeaways, actually. Let me plug on a bit further and see if we find any violent clashes of belief systems. :)
Bruce Siegel
Bruce Siegel
Matt, I was looking over one of our past conversations to refresh my memory as to where I see us as differing, and I found this exchange:
Matt: "I do believe in Oneness myself, but I don't see Oneness as a "God" or "Source." I see oneness as the ultimate state of the universe in which all contradictions and incompleteness have been resolved.. . . But the universe has all of infinity/eternity in which to accomplish this."
Bruce: "That seems to be where we differ. You see oneness as the goal, I see it as the goal AND the starting place."
So has your viewpoint change at all? And wouldn't you agree that Grof does indeed see oneness as the goal and the starting place?
Bruce Siegel
no one
Bruce Siegel
Bruce Siegel
no one
Bruce Siegel
no one
Bruce Siegel
no one
Bruce Siegel
no one
Matt Rouge
I don't like the label that I am a "non-psychedelic user." I think I've had some pretty interesting experiences in dream states, lucid dream states, meditative states, and other states. As a matter of fact, I haven't used psychedelics, but it may be that some of my experiences or the knowledge gained thereby is equivalent to what could be got from psychedelics. Or completely different. I don't know, and I don't want to assume.
Bruce, I am also not assuming that you and Grof agree completely. I may read the book and get different takeaways than you. So I may agree or disagree with you and Grof in varying degrees.
I'll point out stuff I have issues with as I go. The following isn't hugely important. I take issue with the term "holotropic" as it is used in the book. Quoting from page 5,
For this purpose, the term nonordinary states of consciousness is too general, since it includes a wide range of conditions that are not interesting or relevant from this point of view.
OK, I get this. This is his rationale for coining the term. But then, same page:
This composite word [holotropic] literally means "oriented toward wholeness" or "moving in the direction of wholeness" [...]. The full meaning of this term and the justification for its use will become clear later in this book. It suggests that in our everyday state of consciousness we are not really whole; we are fragmented and identify with only a small fraction of who we really are.
Very well. I don't have a huge problem his creation of the term; it is the later use of it that I see as problematic in the following ways:
- The term is, in effect, a compliment paid to the state being experienced. It is a positive judgment: hey, this was a state moving in the direction of wholeness. He talks about a lot of different states, and he doesn't prove or show how each one is really leading to wholeness. I don't know that they are, and I don't prefer to assume so.
He says that he's made up the term because, "Consciousness can be profoundly changed by a variety of pathological processes," causing states that "would be included in the category of nonordinary states of consciousness." Point taken, but "holotropic" ends up simply meaning "the nonordinary states of consciousness that are the good ones, the productive ones." And that's a judgment call for each state so described. He tells a story and calls the state of consciousness "holotropic." Maybe, maybe not. - It's not really clear what a state leading to wholeness is, and I don't really perceive the states he's talking about as having anything in particular to do with "wholeness." The states he describes seem to convey information and insight. In some, I can see a wholeness theme--someone is merging with the Universe, etc. Some do not really seem to have wholeness as their main theme.
I see the need for a short way to say, "Nonordinary states of consciousness that in my judgment were not due to faulty or negative mental processes and which contained or conveyed valuable content," but I think the way he ends up using the term is sloppy philosophy.
But I don't see it as severely damaging the book because I understand, believe in, and have to some degree personally experienced the states of consciousness he's talking about, and I appreciate their value. Thus far (I'm on page 77), he's been pretty much preaching to the choir. But I think his way of using this neologism will hurt his case with respect to non-choir members.
Matt Rouge
Right now, however, I think you and I/no one have different answers to this question: "Is there anything in the Universe that ought not be?" No one and I say yes, and you seem to say no.
I think the answer "no" (if indeed you answer thus) is incorrect and lies in a misunderstanding of the difference between lemons and making lemonade from lemons. There are lemons in the Universe (things that ought not be), but the Universe I think always seeks to make lemonade (make the most of bad things).
For example, if the Cuban Missile Crisis had caused the mutual destruction of the US and the Soviet Union and killed hundreds of millions of people, that would have been, in my opinion, the very definition of a "bad thing." Pretty much nothing worse could happen on planet Earth. Yet, there would have been people who had benefited from such an occurrence. Other nations would have become dominant. Perhaps they would have been more peaceful. There would still be light and laughter in the world. People would have made the most of it. But that fact wouldn't make it a good thing to begin with.
In the world, there are atrocities, abominations, and tragedies. A few weeks ago, I was interpreting for the family of a Japanese guy who got into a car wreck on a snowy interstate with his wife on a Saturday. Since it was the weekend, I have to assume they were just out for pleasure and not business in the blizzard. They had only been in the States a few months and were certainly unaccustomed to driving on snow and ice. Apparently they hit an icy patch and slammed into a car and/or semi on the side of the road. She died on Monday, and he lasted until Sunday, albeit in a brain dead state. The family wisely (in the view of the medical staff and myself) decided to take him off the ventilator, and he died seven hours later. I had to tell his family and his wife's that he wasn't going to make it, and I was there when he died.
This was a tragedy, a waste. They were in their early 30s. Think of all the education and effort and hopes and dreams--only to die in a preventable accident at such a young age. There is nothing good about it.
Of course, life goes on. People will make the most of this bad situation. Like most people here, I believe they are in the Afterlife and can use their short lives as a valuable lesson. But that doesn't mean that the early death was preferable to the alternative.
There are paradoxical tradeoffs in the world between pain and ease. The painful and problematic experiences of our lives can make us stronger and better, but they don't do so always. Sometimes childhood abuse, for example, makes us wiser and more compassionate. Sometimes it just fucks us up so we have trouble enjoying life and learning from it.
But I look forward to reading Grof's take on things.
Bruce Siegel
"Think of all the education and effort and hopes and dreams--only to die in a preventable accident at such a young age. There is nothing good about it."
How can you say that, knowing that many happy and prosperous people who have apparently died and returned (NDErs), have pleaded their case to be allowed to stay "dead"?
"But that doesn't mean that the early death was preferable to the alternative."
How much of the Grand Picture do you claim to be able to see from moment to moment? If you believe in the spiritual world (and I know you do) and if you grasp that it is infinitely vaster than the physical, and that you are privy to so little of its ways and means, how can you claim to know what is preferable in the larger context?
"Bruce, I'm looking forward to the chapter in the book on good and evil."
I'm glad you're reading it!
Bruce Siegel
In reference to Grof's use of the word "holotropic," Matt said:
"It's not really clear what a state leading to wholeness is, and I don't really perceive the states he's talking about as having anything in particular to do with "wholeness.""
I'll have to think about whether he's being sloppy, as you say. Til now, I've always felt comfortable with his use of the word "holotropic," and in fact, greatly appreciated it. And that's in large part because the examples he provides so often remind me of my own experiences, which very literally and precisely are steeped in a sense of wholeness.
Let me know when you run into specific parts of the book in which his use of the term holotropic seems misleading or unwarranted so I can think about them.
no one
Steve Snead
Steve Snead
no one
Steve Snead
no one
Bruce Siegel
Matt Rouge
OK, I am going to have to revise my opinion about the use of the word "holotropic" based on what Grof says later in the book. I'm now on page 84. On page 78, he contrasts "hyletropic" (moving outward toward separation from the source) and "holotropic" (moving inward toward the source). This makes sense and greatly clarifies his earlier explanation of the latter word, since now he's talking in terms of the efflux/reflex of Plotinus, etc.
Thinking more about my own experiences, I find that they are not so much about getting closer to source but about depth and meaning. I think there is another way of looking at this whole thing. Probably an infinite number of ways. After all, the Dao De Jing starts off, "The way that can be named is not the eternal Way." There is no way to pin the whole thing down. But I think the reason that things emanate from the Source is *because* the Source is in search of depth, meaning, vitality, and so on. So it's not as though the One is *above* all its creations. In fact, the relationship is interactive. Not that Grof is saying the opposite. But there are different ways of looking at it all and expressing it.
Bruce,
I appreciate your response, but you didn't address the point re "lemons" vs. "lemonade." That is key.
How can you say that, knowing that many happy and prosperous people who have apparently died and returned (NDErs), have pleaded their case to be allowed to stay "dead"?
Oh sure, the Afterlife is really, really great (in most ways, probably) compared to this life. But most of would choose to live long, full lives before dying. It's going to be there for us either way.
How much of the Grand Picture do you claim to be able to see from moment to moment? If you believe in the spiritual world (and I know you do) and if you grasp that it is infinitely vaster than the physical, and that you are privy to so little of its ways and means, how can you claim to know what is preferable in the larger context?
I think the Latin phrase "ceteris paribus" covers this. "All things being equal." Ceteris paribus, it is better not to be murdered in the night by a serial killer or crash your car on I-65 and get killed (like my Japanese patient). In some cases, it would probably be better for one. If Hitler had died at age 12 or even as a corporal in WWI, he would have died without the bad karma, and the world would have been spared his actions.
Do you claim to know the bigger picture to the extent that everything that happens is A-OK? And if that is the case, do you mean that the Universe makes lemonade out of lemons (which I agree with) or that there are no lemons (bad things) to begin with?
no one,
no one
Matt Rouge
I think there is a variety there, but yes, the porn is perhaps 90% of the whole.
But that's the point. The fact that such a high percentage of people go into it with that attitude is what taints people's perceptions of drug use. The bad apples ruin it for everyone!
no one
no one
Bruce Siegel
no one
Matt Rouge
1. Meditation. Feeling my consciousness dissolve into pure being. Lots of different states of varying intensity and flavor.
2. Once when I was sick, I was in a deep, dreamless sleep. It was way beyond sleep. When I woke up, I was absolutely *stunned* to find myself in human form. I had been so far away, as in the primordial void.
3. I had been thinking a lot about the concept of Advaita, that which exists in opposition and contrast to nothing (non-duality). I was driving home and had a huge satori flash, in which the impossible *bigness*, the infinity of it all poured into my mind.
4. I was waking up from sleep, and this was *not* a dream, but I entered a completely different universe. There were orange spheres communicating with each other in a black void. The essential property of this world was that all attributes were contained in all attributes.
5. Suddenly seeing very vividly what my soul "looks like." Then, a few days later, feeling the unbearably powerful love of my own spirit as I walked in the woods.
6. Meeting a prior incarnation of mine and feeling the same pure, amazing love from her (in both experiences, this seemed very similar to descriptions of the love of the Being of Light in NDEs.
7. Visiting the Astral and Afterlife realms in dreams many times.
8. Lucid dream experiences.
9. Many, many psi and mediumistic experiences.
10. Communing with gods, ascended masters, and higher-dimensional beings somewhat frequently.
To put it vulgarly, I don't want to be comparing spiritual dick size. I don't think my experiences make me anything special. In fact, they seem pretty standard as compared to those of my several psychic friends. But, contrariwise, I am not a fan of lines of argument that go, "I've had these amazing experiences that showed me X, and a lot of people I know and respect believe in X, and so X is true, and you would know that if you'd had such experiences as I have." To me these experiences prove to *me* beyond any doubt that materialism is false, that other realms and dimensions exist, and so on. But I think we should be wary of becoming prophets of particular viewpoints based on our experiences without being cognizant that we are doing so.
Bruce Siegel
Michael Prescott
Matt Rouge
Bruce Siegel
Bruce Siegel
Matt said:
"So it's not as though the One is *above* all its creations."
Exactly!
The One IS all its creations. The only stuff around is God-stuff, though it has been granted the temporary gift of forgetting its identity. (And yes, the gift often seems like a curse.)
"And if that is the case, do you mean that the Universe makes lemonade out of lemons (which I agree with) or that there are no lemons (bad things) to begin with?"
Since there's nothing in existence but God in various disguises or stages of forgetfulness/remembrance, I have a hard time calling anything or anybody bad, and simply leaving it at that.
How can a portion of God be bad? Certainly not rotten to the core, as some people are quick to say about people who do nasty stuff.
Even the devil himself, supposedly a lost soul (an offshoot of God in deep forgetfulness), has an essential function. He makes creation interesting. He thickens the plot.
Bruce Siegel
Matt Rouge
It sounds as though in your experiences you approached Source more from the Absolute Consciousness side of the equation, whereas in mine that are more fully holotropic (satori flash, waking up from sickness, meditation), I approached Source more from the Void side of the equation. I think both are fully valid but they differ in flavor.
On page 100-101, Grof is basically summarizing his position thus far in the book. I'll be commenting on that in the next couple of days, but I want to read the Chapter on Good and Evil first.
no one
Bruce Siegel
"I think I can put the difference rather clearly. Grof talks about both Void and Absolute Consciousness toward the beginning of the book, but he drops talk of the Void pretty quickly. It seems that Absolute Consciousness is what really excites him."
He's probably basing that on his own psychedelic experiences (many of which he recounts in his books). And also, as I said earlier, on the fact that (page 32):
"Others experienced these two aspects of the Absolute simultaneously, identifying with the Cosmic Consciousness, and at the same time, recognizing its essential voidness"
Also, there's a lot more you can say about *something* as opposed to mere potential, no matter how vast. Putting the focus on the void would have resulted in a very short book. :o)
"It sounds as though in your experiences you approached Source more from the Absolute Consciousness side of the equation, whereas in mine that are more fully holotropic (satori flash, waking up from sickness, meditation), I approached Source more from the Void side of the equation."
Maybe. Some of my experiences embraced the void-like aspects, but I've never been tempted to use that word, because in normal speech it means nothingness, whereas when I viewed the cosmos as an infinite expanse of pure, formless, potential, the impression I had was one of everything-ness rather than nothingness.
Bruce Siegel
"there's more to it than pure entertainment. There is discovery of a variety of "truths"; which Grof also seems to recognize, but emphasizes less."
No one, read this long passage and tell me if you still think that Grof puts the emphasis on mere entertainment:
Grof speaks of a divine play. Watching that play might be entertainment. But LIVING it, as Grof understands we do, is another thing entirely.
"If Matt is right, and there is a feedback loop, then that would reconcile the existence of good and evil with Bruce's take on Grof."
As I see it, to speak of a "feedback loop" is correct, but it's actually a downplaying of the intimate connection between God and creation. God IS creation. He IS the infinite offshoots of himself that he sends into manifest reality. How could there not be a feedback loop?
Matt Rouge
I will say that I think Bruce has represented Grof's position very well and accurately. So it seems as though I won't be saying, "Well you said, Bruce, but GROF says!!!" That will make for a cleaner debate. :)
Just a teaser opinion on what I've read thus far. I think Grof gets things 90% right, but that remaining 10% is of crucial importance. I think he is a good anthropologist, and I find his case studies and observations to be of immense value. It is as a philosopher that he falters--quite a bit. In the chapter on good and evil, I will give him big credit for being aware of the issues his position raises--he says himself most of what I would say. But then he basically blows off the issues. Frustrating!
One question I can ask now is this: What is Grof's value-add philosophically speaking? Again, his cases and observations--great. His processing of them--not so great. What does he add over and above, say, Buddhism? He references Buddhism a lot, but nowhere does he clearly say, "Hey Buddhism got this right but we can make it more right by subtracting this or adding that." Personally, I would have no trouble specifying the value-add New Age thinking has over the religions and belief systems it brings together.
All of the great religions, including Buddhism were not afraid to call good good and evil evil. In Buddhism, you have the Noble Eightfold Path. It's pretty darn clear. The Divine Play or Dance that Grof describes sounds like nothing less than the Wheel of Samsara--something to escape, not celebrate. I mean, you can contrast them directly: Buddha: You will go through all of these incarnations in various worlds, but this is not something you want. The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to get off the wheel and achieve Nirvana. Grof: You will go through all of these incarnations in various worlds--and it's all good!
It's as if Grof recognizes the worldview of Buddhism but blows off its main message. Again, philosophically, this seems like a value subtraction and not a value add.
More than a teaser, I guess! Let's see how the rest of the book goes...
Matt Rouge
no one
Bruce Siegel
"I will say that I think Bruce has represented Grof's position very well and accurately. So it seems as though I won't be saying, "Well you said, Bruce, but GROF says!!!" That will make for a cleaner debate. :)"
Glad to hear that I've been doing justice to the work of one of my heroes. (It's pretty easy, though, since our viewpoints are virtually the same.)
"It's as if Grof recognizes the worldview of Buddhism but blows off its main message."
Matt, you have to remember that in Cosmic Game, Grof is not putting together a philosophy based on the wisdom of Buddhism or any other religion. Rather, he is reporting on what his thousands of clients over the years have told him about their experiences in psychedelic therapy and holotropic breathwork.
I know that you have a grounding in various schools of philosophy and in assorted religions. Apparently, it troubles you when this collective wisdom is challenged or slighted in some way.
I feel differently. I'm not tied to any system or body of knowledge. In fact, I tend to mistrust any approach that can be defined or labelled.
Instead, I trust what I've experienced and what others whom I trust have experienced. For better or worse, these are my primary sources. And despite the fact that Grof has a deep knowledge of various religions, I think the same is true for him. As I see it, despite his extreme erudition, he's a mystic first, and a scholar and philosopher second.
He began, by the way, as a Freudian analyst in Czechoslovakia, but had his worldview turned upside down by his early experiences with LSD.
Bruce Siegel
Steve Snead
Also, just a quick observation on reincarnation. I came to reincarnation or rather the belief in the possibility of reincarnation on my own. I wasn't raised in a culture that taught the concept. Of course "On my own" isn't right either since I had to be influenced somewhere. My life experience did seem to make more sense once I accepted the possibility of the concept. Anyway, I don't see reincarnation as something to "escape" from. I think we continue to reincarnate and being reincarnated doesn't mean you did something "wrong" it just means you and the group you are coming back with are still working on some things. I don't see it as a journey to "nothingness" but as a part of a larger journey, an eternal one if you will, to know "God."
Bruce Siegel
"Will I be able to get a feel for the book from the sample?"
I think so, Steve. But there's a lot more of the book available to read online at the same link. Just scroll forwards and backwards from that excerpt.
"I think we continue to reincarnate and being reincarnated doesn't mean you did something "wrong""
That's how I think about it too.
"I don't see it as a journey to "nothingness" but as a part of a larger journey, an eternal one if you will, to know "God." "
Or to know yourself, which is the same thing.
Matt Rouge
You wrote,
Let me change this to: You tend to object when this collective wisdom is not given the weight or attention you feel it's due. (Though with Grof, he gives it plenty of attention, he just doesn't consider it to be the final word.)
Instead of saying to people, "Take psilocybin and see for yourself," Grof has written a book in which he explains his worldview, etc. Now, I acknowledge the value of the case studies (although I think there could be more of them) and Grof's demonstration of how the content of holotropic experiences relates to spiritual beliefs from around the world and from the past, present, and future, I am not finding a whole lot of value-add in his conclusions.
He's not just presenting the content of the experiences and telling the reader to decide what it all means. Rather, he's telling us what it all means--and he's not doing a very good job.
It is in this telling that philosophy comes into play. One may be a mystic all s/he likes, but the arguments s/he makes will be judged just like any other arguments: by the standard of Reason. And in the chapter on good and evil, Grof makes a big mess. I'm not trying to exaggerate my opinion here for effect; it really is bad stuff, as I shall argue in detail once I finish the whole book. (Again, Grof isn't all bad! His arguments in this chapter and elsewhere are often bad.)
Matt Rouge
But if he is going to reference Buddhism a lot as though it were true, then my question is: Why not just stick with what Buddhism actually taught instead of deviating significantly from it? I think that would also make for a clearer argument if he said something like this: "Buddhism (Christianity, etc.) got a lot of things right, but here's what it got wrong, and here's how we can fill in the blanks."
Bruce Siegel
"I am not finding a whole lot of value-add in his conclusions."
I'm not sure if there's a special meaning to "value-add" that I'm not getting. And "conclusions" seems to me as not exactly the right word. One of the things I love about Grof is how unpretentious he is. I get the feeling that he has great respect for the great mystery he is trying to describe, and would be the last to say that he's got it all figured out.
But you ask about value, so let me respond in the only way that makes sense to me.
Suppose you found a book that eloquently and precisely described your own spiritual viewpoint, while grounding it in the experiences of countless other individuals and historical traditions, and while also adding to it illustrations and clarifications that you found delightful, insightful, beautiful, and even moving?
That's the value of the book to me. For you, it's obviously a different story.
"But if he is going to reference Buddhism a lot as though it were true, then my question is: Why not just stick with what Buddhism actually taught instead of deviating significantly from it? I think that would also make for a clearer argument if he said something like this: "Buddhism (Christianity, etc.) got a lot of things right, but here's what it got wrong, and here's how we can fill in the blanks."
I know very little about Buddhism, so I'll not try to comment on that.
"Rather, he's telling us what it all means--and he's not doing a very good job. . . . And in the chapter on good and evil, Grof makes a big mess."
I'll be interested in the specifics so I can respond.
Matt Rouge
I'm not sure if there's a special meaning to "value-add" that I'm not getting. And "conclusions" seems to me as not exactly the right word. One of the things I love about Grof is how unpretentious he is. I get the feeling that he has great respect for the great mystery he is trying to describe, and would be the last to say that he's got it all figured out.
I agree that he is not pretentious. The book reads well, and I am moving through pretty effortlessly. I do appreciate the good things about the book.
By "value-add" I mean what is he adding to the various accounts he presents and references to world historical spirituality. Yes, presenting the accounts is valuable, but where he doesn't add value IMO is in his original analysis of what it all means. "Value add" is lingo from my life as a business guy (MBA and advertising writer). You know, you get raw materials and add value to them by processing them, or maybe you assemble a product from parts or package a finished product.
Grof is adding value by assembling the accounts, but his value-add seems to stop there.
Suppose you found a book that eloquently and precisely described your own spiritual viewpoint, while grounding it in the experiences of countless other individuals and historical traditions, and while also adding to it illustrations and clarifications that you found delightful, insightful, beautiful, and even moving?
It's not really countless. I would be interested in hearing more raw stories and getting people's own perspective on what it all means. We know from the Bruce vs. no one part of the debate that having a psychedelic-holotropic experience doesn't automatically make one see things Grof's way. The experiences are not coming to the same top-level conclusions Grof is, or we are at least not given the text of their doing so. And Grof is indeed coming to "conclusions": he's tying things all together in his own way and definitely presenting a worldview. That doesn't make him pretentious, but he does indeed seem fairly confident in his statements.
I would contrast the presentation of psychedelic and other experiences in Grof's book with those of NDEs. I think NDEs tend to speak for themselves, and the experiencers often state their own conclusions based on their experiences. Thus, it doesn't really take a collator to tie everything together and make sense of it. For example, a bunch of people talk about a life review, and it's clear they're talking about the same thing.
The common themes I see in the holotropic experiences related by Grof are 1) the accessibility of archetypal beings and 2) the interconnectedness of all things. Two things I have experienced myself to some degree and have no issue with whatsoever. I do not see experiencers describing for themselves the same big picture that Grof does, especially as regards ethics. If the same big picture has in fact come out of the experiences, I would like to hear about it in the experiencers' own words.
Bruce Siegel
I agree that he is not pretentious. The book reads well, and I am moving through pretty effortlessly. I do appreciate the good things about the book.
I'm glad to hear that.
Grof is adding value by assembling the accounts, but his value-add seems to stop there.
If Grof did nothing but assemble these accounts, I would still consider the book important. His huge inventory of data from decades of work with clients in non-ordinary states is a priceless body of information pointing to the truth of who and what we really are beneath the masks we wear.
And remember this: it takes courage to persist in a field which is often vilified by government and society, in this case, in the name of the war on drugs.
I liken Grof to those who risked their lives and freedom in pursuit of the truth during the Inquisition, which is why Grof and other consciousness researchers are heroes in my eyes.
But he does much more than just assemble reports. He unifies the data by discussing the similarities of reports from many categories of non-ordinary states. He presents the big picture of what it all means, and describes the specific mechanisms that make the cosmic scheme work.
I find particularly useful his description of the partitioning process, and the essential role of evil. This is a hugely important point.
You feel comfortable saying that certain things in this universe simply shouldn't happen or exist. They're mistakes, plain and simple. For me, this is a metaphysically inappropriate and unrealistic way of thinking. I accept that:
"…evil is an intrinsic part of creation and that all realms that contain separate individuals will always have both a light and a shadow side. Since evil is inextricably woven into the cosmic fabric and indispensable for for the existence of experiential worlds, it cannot be defeated and eradicated."
It's not really countless [number of sources]
Grof draws on 6,000 sessions of psychedelic therapy or holotropic breathwork. That's a large number. Plus, he puts that in the context of a much larger body of spiritual tradition throughout the centuries. Cumulatively, we're talking about a lot of people here.
I would be interested in hearing more raw stories and getting people's own perspective on what it all means.
Remember--psychedelics are illegal. That's a huge obstacle to reporting on these experiences, and is no doubt why we have so many heartfelt, first-person, and highly publicized NDE bestsellers, and quite a different situation in the field of psychedelic experience.
Having said that, there are many accounts, though they're published with less fanfare. (Or in "secret" vaults under pseudonyms, as in Erowid.) Published authors under their real names include Christopher Bache, Ann and Sasha Shulgin, Huston Smith, Myron Stolaroff, Bernardo Kastrup, James Oroc, and many more. If you're looking for individual perspectives on psychedelic experience, these are great sources. And all of these people, it seems to me, are in essential agreement with Grof's philosophy.
Oh--and that account I linked to earlier in the thread from Erowid.
And dd to that all the NDErs that echo Grof's scheme. But I've mentioned them in previous conversations.
Bruce Siegel
Bruce Siegel
no one
no one
Bruce Siegel
We found no "pleasure" in that little evil.
I never said anything about the "pleasure" of evil. I talked about the "pleasure" in FIGHTING it. Can two things be more radically different than that?
You'll notice too, that I put "pleasure" in quotes. What I'm talking about is the satisfaction we experience in overcoming evil. And by evil, I mean a bad or painful situation of any kind. I'm certain you can relate to that satisfaction.
I have to say, no one, it seems as if you are looking for the weakest possible interpretation of what I'm saying.
Why is Grof the only one with a repository of psychedelic use that does not recognize these negative forces?
This is just plain wrong, as Matt, who's now actually reading the book, will tell you. Grof devotes a large chunk of the Cosmic Game to discussing evil: its nature, its reason for being, and how to deal with it. Matt and I have been talking about that in previous comments.
Many of his other books also deal exhaustively with negative energies, entities, you name it. Negativity is one of his primary concerns. At times, even his MAIN concern. In one of his books there's an entire chapter devoted to a pateint who was apparently possessed by a demon of some sort.
no one
no one
Bruce Siegel
evil is, in itself, still a bad thing that ought not to be.
In the sense that Grof uses the word evil,
"the various manifestations of evil are expressions of the energy that makes the split-off units of consciousness feel separate from each other. Since the divine play is unimaginable without individual protagonists, the existence of evil is absolutely essential."
In other words, no evil, no interest. No separate characters and no storyline. Only God in its pristine, unified, blissful state.
Boring!
Would you go to see a movie where there was only one character who felt wonderful from the opening scene to the last?
I know what you're thinking: "But why does the negativity have to be SO bad?"
Probably things aren't so difficult in most environments around the cosmos. The earth may be one of the toughest "neighborhoods" a soul ever encounters. Maybe 99% of the universe is much friendlier.
But maybe the advantage of coming to a place like Earth is that the greater the agony experienced, the greater the potential for ecstasy afterwards. That's MY guess!
Bruce Siegel
He does discuss evil. However, he ultimately dismisses it as such; just as you do.
Bruce Siegel
Bruce Siegel
Tharpa sent me this email. I'm pretty sure he intended it for the whole group:
Enjoying this conversation.......thanks! I don't know what to say about evil except it gives us the fuel, the friction, to really feel separateness and aliveness in a particular way that spirit wants. I agree that Earth is a rough neighborhood. But what I really came to do is drop off a link to a good documentary about the afterlife- complete with skeptical balance- on the Scole Experiments. If you haven't seen this it's quite good and a fine weekend view. Cheers! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvQ_WTtdHk
Matt Rouge
Just based on what we have here so far though, I think we need to distinguish "negativity" from "evil." Not doing so leads to numerous errors, I think. I think negativity is baked into the fabric of the Universe on a mathematical level and thus can't be avoided. As Godel proved, no system can be both complete and non-contradictory. I think this is the key to understanding negativity and evil, which is a type of negativity.
I think Whitley Streiber came up with a definition of evil that's as good as any I've seen: "Denial of the right to thrive." There needs to be will behind the negativity in order for it to be evil. Thus, as no one said, a volcano is not evil. In fact, there was arguably no evil on Earth before people arrived, although there was plenty of negativity (fighting, pain, suffering, etc.). On the other hand, some animal behaviors are evil when the individuals are truly vicious and not characteristic of the species as a whole, but animals can't be evil on the same level as our recent example of Heinrich Himmler.
I would describe negativity as the Universe's conflict with itself. I would say that it is like the background radiation of space--always there, like an electrical charge on all things and in all things. This energy can be channeled, and it *wants* to be channeled. It can be channeled for either good or evil. Most of the time, we have negativity in the background and we process it, metabolize it so to speak, and it isn't a problem. Often we even use it for good, or at least neutral purposes. E.g., putting aggression into sports. Of course, we often screw up and process the energy in a mildly evil way: cussing out a loved one or whatever.
But there are people who by their nature channel negativity exceptionally well and who *are* evil. They love the feeling of negativity. They are masters at channeling negative energy. And they love hurting others, since that creates even more negative energy for them to feed off of. Some people like Hitler are like master channelers of negativity and seem to potentiate the channeling ability of others as well.
Negativity and positivity are asymmetrical opposites. I think George Lucas covered this well in his description of the Light and Dark Sides of the Force. Evil is faster and easier (being this diffuse energy throughout all things), but evil is self-destructive so its power is limited. Positivity is harder to channel but is self-reinforcing and thus is stronger. BTW, just as negativity can be used for good, positivity can be used for evil. Recall the Yin-Yang symbol with dark in the light and light in the dark. Further, we cannot eliminate negative energy from our spiritual system, and we shouldn't try. Nothing is 100% positive.
I think that is basically how negativity and evil "work." Now the Universe/God *do* beat negativity and evil by resolving contradictions and completing themselves in the realm of infinity. And the mathematical nature of the Universe is such that, just as there is more matter than antimatter in the physical universe, there is more positivity than negativity in the Final State. That is what I call the "good news of Reality." And we all partake of this good news and it is what gives us hope.
Now I may be wrong about the above in part or in whole, but at least it's a non-facile way of dealing with the problem of negativity and evil. To say, "Everything is God and so everything is good," relies on the logical fallacy of equivocation, for one thing (which I'll explain further when I quote Grof directly and argue back," but beyond that it's a childish way of explaining things away.
To say that evil is "good" because it makes life interesting and it's a pleasure to fight against it is problematic for a couple reasons I can name off the top of my head. First, it is overly human-psychology-centric. Yes, we enjoy conflict to the point where we create sports and games just to enjoy a bit of safe contention. Yes, we find the resolution of conflict entertaining in stories. But that may just be a flaw in our primate psychology and not evidence of a universal truth! There are perhaps intelligent races out there on other planets who don't enjoy conflict at all and would be even more appalled at the evil in which humans engage than we are.
The second point is that it's quite patronizing to cite the pleasure of fighting evil as a good thing to those who have actually fought evil. Would you say to bomber pilot getting shot down over Germany, "Are you enjoying your little game? Quite interesting, isn't it?" People fought evil because they wanted to get rid of evil. It's quite patronizing to say, "I'm smart or informed enough to see that it's all a 'Cosmic Game' whereas you are sincerely and ignorantly engaged in it." What if everyone wised up to this "fact" and acted accordingly? It would be equivalent to complete nihilism.
That's my basic take on Grof's ethics. In my blog posts I will go into detail about specific quotes from the book, which in fact sound more clueless in my opinion that the summary above. As I said, Grof really makes a mess.
BTW, I am in the chapter about the perinatal stuff, and I am also with no one in not seeing it. I think it's interesting but unlike something like NDEs, I have not run across anything else in my studies that backs it up.
I will also agree with no one in one of his posts above that Grof "spoon feeds" us accounts and builds his explanation of the "Cosmic Game" on that filtered content. I really feel that we are seeing these accounts through a narrow viewfinder. I would appreciate more accounts and bigger ones that let us read the conclusions at which the experiences have themselves arrived.
Bruce Siegel
Just based on what we have here so far though, I think we need to distinguish "negativity" from "evil." Not doing so leads to numerous errors, I think.
Excellent point. I've often been using "evil" when I really mean "negativity".
I think negativity is baked into the fabric of the Universe on a mathematical level and thus can't be avoided.
Don't know what you mean by "mathematical," but I otherwise agree with you. (Though I would precede universe with "manifest' to clarify that we're not including God in his pristine form.) But you haven't given me a REASON for the existence of negativity other than this:
I would describe negativity as the Universe's conflict with itself. I would say that it is like the background radiation of space--always there, like an electrical charge on all things and in all things.
But why is the universe in conflict with itself? You haven't said why this strange state of affairs exists, you've just thrown words at the problem. Is it just some cosmic quirk or mistake that ought not to be the case, as you often say is true of evil?
(And please don't quote some mathematical formula to explain it. I'm no mathematician, and I don't believe for a moment that a degree in mathematics or physics is essential to understand these matters. Are scientists the new priests who must interpret and pass along spiritual truths to us laymen?)
Grof, on the other hand, HAS given me a reason for the existence of negativity, one that resonates with me right down to my toes:
"[negativity] makes the split-off units of consciousness feel separate from each other. Since the divine play is unimaginable without individual protagonists, the existence of [negativity] is absolutely essential."
(I've substituted negativity for evil to simplify the conversation.)
In other words, without negativity there are no separate protagonists and therefore no opportunities for a storyline. Only God in its pristine, unified, blissful state.
That's one of the key insights in Cosmic Game, and I think it's more than brilliant.
To say that evil is "good" because it makes life interesting and it's a pleasure to fight against it is problematic
This was a shorthand that I regret using. Let me say it this way:
As an extreme form of negativity, evil heightens the separation between God's partitions (the individuals that make up the manifest universe). It thus allows for an intensified adventure focusing on the gradual re-unification of those parts.
So the "fight against evil" I was referring to is really the challenge of overcoming separation. When you overcome evil (or any form of negativity) you are, of necessity, coming closer to God, because without negativity, there is no separation.
This reconciliation is the theme of our spiritual journey--the return to Source, and to each other, that NDErs and others describe again and again.
Matt Rouge
This point of view is not new, and it actually has been criticized for a long time. See the sendup of it in this clip from the movie Little Murders (great performance by Donald Sutherland!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgwjHBUW9MY
"Nothing is destructive if you do not see it as destructive. It is all part of life, part of who we are." Etc.
But you haven't given me a REASON for the existence of negativity other than this:
Yes, I did. I talked about Godel's incompleteness theorem. Basically he proved that no mathematical system can be both complete and non-contradictory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_incompleteness_theorem
"Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem."
(And please don't quote some mathematical formula to explain it. I'm no mathematician, and I don't believe for a moment that a degree in mathematics or physics is essential to understand these matters. Are scientists the new priests who must interpret and pass along spiritual truths to us laymen?)
Mathematicians are not scientists! They deal with proofs, not experiments. What is required to understand these matters is philosophy. Reason. I don't think a degree is required, but thinking and processing arguments is.
Grof, on the other hand, HAS given me a reason for the existence of
negativity, one that resonates with me right down to my toes:
"[negativity] makes the split-off units of consciousness feel separate from each other. Since the divine play is unimaginable without individual protagonists, the existence of [negativity] is absolutely essential."
Well, he does say evil, so that is a problem right there is you agree that negativity should be distinguished from evil. I will go into this more later, but I think the whole thing about "split-off units" is incorrect. It presupposes that there is a God or Source that is deciding to split itself into different parts for kicks. In what I believe to be the case, consciousness evolves and progresses so as to achieve the Final State of perfection. In other words, we are not split off from Source, we compose Source. Yet, because Source exists outside of time, it is also able to influence its compositional parts within time.
In Grof's view, to put it vulgarly, God is just kinda "dicking around" with its split-off parts. I find it to be a very depressing and nihilistic vision. It is downright dystopian. There is no vector, no mission, and apparently it will just churn like that forever.
In the vision I have outlined above, we each have a vector toward perfection and so does Reality. Things are evolving to be better. The good things we do, the efforts we make, really do make a difference.
As an extreme form of negativity, evil heightens the separation between God's partitions (the individuals that make up the manifest universe). It thus allows for an intensified adventure focusing on the gradual re-unification of those parts.
If that were the case, then why would the Universe not go for infinite negativity? Infinite pain and suffering?
This is a sad Universe playing peek-a-boo with itself with no other purpose, apparently, than the relief of seeing suffering end. This too is quite human-psychology-centric. We often feel better when suffering ends and we return to a neutral state than when we are actually experiencing positive pleasure. For example, a man might be overjoyed not be executed and simply returned to his cell and thus might be in a much better state than a guy watching TV in the comfort of his home. But no one in his right mind would want to be threatened with execution just to feel that rush! That is why this vision is so pathetic.
So the "fight against evil" I was referring to is really the challenge of overcoming separation. When you overcome evil (or any form of negativity) you are, of necessity, coming closer to God, because without negativity, there is no separation.
Then just don't be separated in the first place. Problem solved.
Bruce Siegel
Matt, I feel that this conversation has been interesting and productive--up to this last set of responses. Objections like the following are points Grof and I have talked about in depth. They're pivotal issues, and there's not much more I can say about them that I haven't said before, or that Grof hasn't said better and in greater detail:
"God is just kinda "dicking around" with its split-off parts."
"Then just don't be separated in the first place. Problem solved."
"This is a sad Universe playing peek-a-boo with itself with no other purpose, apparently, than the relief of seeing suffering end . . . That is why this vision is so pathetic."
It surprises me, and I have to admit, disappoints me, that you got this far in the book and apparently see so little strength in its arguments.
And the answer to the following question seems so obvious, I don't see why you would bother asking it:
If that were the case, then why would the Universe not go for infinite negativity? Infinite pain and suffering?
By the way, it's a side issue that has no bearing whatsoever on the point I was making, but if you google "Is math a science?" the answer doesn't seem to be as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Here's one discussion:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
Are you saying that the mental operation of seeing things as undesirable or incorrect is itself incorrect?
Not at all. But in regards to the cosmic scheme, for a human being to say that he knows how things "should" or "should not" be (a claim you frequently make) is laughable. Can the human mind really take in enough of the big picture to make a judgement like that?
Bruce Siegel
An add-on to my last comment.
Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that Grof's (and my) scheme depresses you, Matt. While many people find it inspiring, your reaction reminds me of something Ann Shulgin wrote. At the following link, you'll find an excerpt from the book PIHKAL. It's a dialogue she had with Spirit during a psychedelic journey.
I've always found Spirit's words here stunningly beautiful (and in perfect accord with my own understanding). She has a different take.
http://hedonistphilosopher.tumblr.com/post/27166440660/shulgins-catechism
Matt Rouge
Bruce,
Matt, I feel that this conversation has been interesting and productive--up to this last set of responses.
That's a judgment, isn't it?
Objections like the following are points Grof and I have talked about in depth. They're pivotal issues, and there's not much more I can say about them that I haven't said before, or that Grof hasn't said better and in greater detail.
I will eventually quote Grof's own responses, but he actually doesn't have much. These objections are killer objections. They destroy the position under contention. They can't be answered and they prove the position false. That's my opinion, at any rate!
It surprises me, and I have to admit, disappoints me, that you got this far in the book and apparently see so little strength in its arguments.
Grof makes very poor arguments for the ethics that result from his position. Yes, the arguments hold no water.
And the answer to the following question seems so obvious, I don't see why you would bother asking it:
If that were the case, then why would the Universe not go for infinite negativity? Infinite pain and suffering?
Then please provide the obvious answer.
By the way, it's a side issue that has no bearing whatsoever on the point I was making, but if you google "Is math a science?" the answer doesn't seem to be as clear cut as you make it out to be.
That's fine. I wanted to make a point distinguishing "proof" from "experiment."
Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that Grof's (and my) scheme
depresses you, Matt.
No, you shouldn't! I goes against the common sense and spiritual beliefs of what I would say are the vast majority of people out there. It goes against the spiritual beliefs of every major religion and against the mainstream of New Age thinking as well.
While many people find it inspiring,
Who? Any evidence for that? The book has like 8 reviews on Amazon. If there is evidence of a large number of people agreeing with Grof, please provide it.
your reaction reminds me of something Ann Shulgin wrote. At the following link, you'll find an excerpt from the book PIHKAL. It's a dialogue she had with Spirit during a psychedelic journey.
I read it, thank you.
"All existence is an expression of the One Mind. Allah, The Ground of Being, The I Am, God, are some of the names for that which forms itself, loves itself, hates itself, teaches and learns from itself, gives birth and nourishes itself, kills and devours itself, forever and ever without end."
You said you don't know much about Buddhism. This is a perfect description of samsara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara_%28Buddhism%29), the very thing that the Buddha said we must become enlightened to escape.
Another thing that you, Grof, Shulgin, et al. don't take into consideration is that we beings have a vote in things. We on Earth have decided that good is nice band evil isn't and we act accordingly. We don't throw up our hands and say, "Let all be in balance!" Further, Grof says archetypal beings exist, and in mythology most archetypal beings are good, not evil. Sure, there tends to be a negative god or two in the pantheon, but it is never half and half. They too, granting that they exist, would tip the balance of the Universe toward good. Finally, if you agree with me that there are advanced beings in Spirit occupying the higher dimensions, it would seem that most or all of these are good, not evil, and they would definitely tip the balance of the Universe toward good. Most living, conscious entities want to be good, not evil, and strive for that. For this reason alone, I think it's clear that Universe is more good than evil, that there is not perfect balance between the light and dark, and there are good philosophical reasons for this.
Matt Rouge
Bruce Siegel
I don't have time to write, but can't resist these quick ones:
Then why do you think it's possible for a human mind to take in enough of the big picture to write the book The Cosmic Game? You have no problem saying what you say based on your level of knowledge, but then when I say what I say, you play this card. No contradiction there?
That's the whole point of the book, remember? As much as any book can be, it's not based on the limitations of the human mind, but relies instead on the reports of thousands of people who have traveled beyond its confines.
I think it's clear that Universe is more good than evil, that there is not perfect balance between the light and dark.
Who says perfect balance mean equal amounts? It means the right mix.
And I agree: the universe is infinitely more positive than negative!
Which relates to the question of why there is not infinite pain and suffering. What sort of being could possibly tolerate, much less benefit from, infinite pain and suffering?
The right balance is needed between light and dark. My guess is that Earth is a place that's been designed for those who choose, for whatever reasons, to experience a hefty dose of darkness.
Bruce Siegel
no one
- "Thus acts of body and speech are driven by an underlying intention or will (cetanā) and they are unwholesome or wholesome because they are motivated by unwholesome or wholesome intentions. Acts of body and speech are, then, the end products of particular kinds of mentality. At the same time karma can exist as a simple ‘act of will’, a forceful mental intention or volition that does not lead to an act of body or speech."
- .
Matt Rouge
Great response.
Bruce,
That's the whole point of the book, remember? As much as any book can be, it's not based on the limitations of the human mind, but relies instead on the reports of thousands of people who have traveled beyond its confines.
Significant problems here:
1. Many people before Grof and his subjects experienced altered/holotropic states via meditation (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian mystics) and psychedelics (peyote, ayahuasca, etc.). Traditional religions and societies (including Native American) have not come to the conclusions that Grof has. Why do you hold Grof's and his subjects' testimony above that of others? (Also, I do not think Grof demonstrates that his subjects share his conclusions.)
2. You said yourself that your experiences are no better than anyone else's. Yet the above sounds as though you are saying you are right based on your experiences, while other people who have not had a similar experience are wrong. It is like an argument from authority, with you or Grof as the authority.
Now, I am not saying that such a belief would be absurd, but if that's what you mean, then you have to accept what goes along with that.
Who says perfect balance mean equal amounts? It means the right mix.
And I agree: the universe is infinitely more positive than negative!
Excellent. But who is determining the "right mix"? Further, I do not see this belief in the book thus far. Please quote the appropriate passage if it is there. Rather, Grof seems to hold that God is exploring every possibility (which is basically Spinoza's view).
Matt Rouge
no one wrote,
Where I value psychedelics because they remind me that my true nature is a free spirit not anchored, except by choice and training, to any particular band on the perceptual receiver, I think that you and Grof value psychedelics because they move you to a particular band on the receiver that appeals to you and that, because it does, you deem to be Ultimate Reality.
At the same time, I don't think we can blow off such feelings just because we disagree with some of the conclusions that the people who have them reach. Likewise, I cannot and do not blow off or otherwise discount your psychedelic experiences just because I don't agree with all that you conclude based on them.
But you must tread carefully. To say that you have experienced X and thus know Y is to make yourself (literally, not figuratively) a prophet, and being a prophet carries with it a lot of responsibility.
Certainly, that level of responsibility is diminished when you cite yourself as one data point among many, which you (Bruce) do. The trouble in this case is that I am not privy to the original accounts in which people reach those conclusions. Grof does, Shulgin does, perhaps Danison does (although I think that is a whole other kettle of fish). Yes, and I've heard New Agers say something similar. I don't, however, see it as a very widespread belief system. In any case, it is just one among many.
Feeling must be tempered with Reason. Otherwise, the evangelical Christian and anyone else who has had an extraordinary experience is also "right"--yet not everyone can be right. For this reason, I seek to find the worldview that takes into consideration all of the data points, whether they fit my immediate inclinations or not. For example, it would be simpler if negative NDEs didn't exist or were only had by obviously evil people--but that clearly isn't the case. How, then, do we accommodate them? The miracle of the sun at Fatima doesn't fit my belief system, but I think it's pretty clear that it happened. How do I include it? And so on.
Saying, "I experienced X, and a bunch of people agree with me, so it must be true," is too facile in my book.