🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:53:21 GMT, Art <null@zilch.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:25:51 +1100, John Fitzsimons
><DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Hi Art,

I am happy to discuss metaphysics with you/others but most would point
out that such discussion is too far (OT) for a software newsgroup. So
I have set the follow ups to newsgroups where discussion of life after
death etc. is not off topic.

You/others are free to comment further there (with me/others) if you
like.

>>>>I regularly work with people who have been called, or are currently 
>>>>called "Shizophrenic". In many cases it is simply a case of someone 
>>>>being "psychic" and not understanding this and/or being able to control 
>>>>it.

>>>Pardon me, I can't accept this. Not out of argumentativeness, it is 
>>>because of my training and knowledge:

>>< snip >

>>Fine by me. I regularly talk to people with no understanding
>>of/interest in psychic matters. People with totally closed minds 
>>are quite common in our society.   :-)

>Indeed. About three decades ago, I spent considerable time
>researching this arena, and also searching for some kind of
>metaphysical framework that I could live with. I found the
>latter ... a description of the "unseen reality" that literally
>made the hairs on my arms stand up straight :) I experienced
>a crack in my cosmic egg that hasn't gone away ... the
>hardhead became a softheaded mystic (philosophically
>at least). 

Yes, people who have a clear/certain view of life can be rather 
shaken when confronted by things that challenge their beliefs/
views. Reminds me of the people who came to see me after 
their furniture started moving. With nobody physical near it 
at the time !  :-)

>Basically, my view is that everything is a manifestation
>of conscious energy ... aware "psychic" energy which
>is random but which has propensities to form structured
>systems. Subatomic particles "know about" all others
>and participate in forming the physical universe studied
>by physicists (to mention just one reality system we
>know about). In our "time illusion", it appears that
>creation is continuous (or contiguous). But time has no
>basic meaning or significance. 

Some people suggest that physical reality is a manifestation 
created by intelligence(s) in other dimensions.

>I tend to think of paranormal and psi phenomena as
>"leakage" into our structured physical reality. It's
> extremely difficult to study from "inside the box" we 
>are in. 

Agreed. Part of the problem is that our social/religious conditioning
hampers such study, as we try to make things "fit in" with what we
believe/expect.

>Yet, some excellent scientific studies of the paranormal
>have been made, such as Dr. Ian Stevenson's reincarnation
>http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/psychiatric/stevenson.cfm
>research using young children as subjects. Here, the
>reincarnation hypothosis isn't proven, nor is it the
>only hypothesis which might explain the very strange
>evidence. It's as Stevenson says ... it's just the
>least absurd explanation. Finding other good studies done 
>in different ways, I found myself accepting it and believing in
>reincarnation. That implies the existence of soul, and also mind as
>not being a function of the brain. Also, it implies that at least
>some memories are not "stored in" the brain, but rather are stored in
>the (immaterial) mind.   

Yes, I have Stevenson's 1974 book. Some other books that may interest
you include "Past Lives Therapy". Written by Morris Netherton Ph.D and
Nancy Shiffrin. The former having a doctorate in Psychology and the
latter being a facilitator at Calabassa Neuropsychiatric Hospital and
at U.C.L.A.

A more recent title is "Mission to Millboro" by Marge Rieder, Ph.D.
Interesting in that multiple people recall the same Civil War events.
From physically living during that period.

I assume that you already know of the books by Dr BrianWeiss such as
"Through Time Into Healing" etc. ? He graduated magna cum laude, Phi
Beta Kappa, from Columbia University and received his medical degree
from Yale University School of Medicine. 

A less well know author would probably be Thelma B. Freedman, Ph.D.
She maintains a private practice in New York. Her book is "Soul Echoes
The Healing Power Of Past-Life Therapy".

There are numerous other titles I could mention but for completeness I
might just mention one more only. "Return From Heaven" by Carol
Bowman. Her book is particularly interesting as she discusses the
situation of dead relatives being reincarnated into the same family.

>Another tidbit that sticks in my mind is a assertion by the
>psychoanalyst Dr. Roger Woolger who claims there is a consenus view
>among analysts that the fetal infant is aware, and absorbing the
>thoughts and feelings of the mother from the moment of
>conception onward. 

I would suggest that the majority of people may be aware of the
thoughts and feelings of others. IF they allow themselves to. Many
people however close themselves down from such awareness due
to selfishness, indifference, fear, self preservation etc.

>The infant views itself as a portion of the mother
>since it doesn't yet have a ego or sense of being a separate self.

Well, that may be correct. I wouldn't however to be inclined to agree.
We IMO are "individuals" before/after the time we become properly
established into physical reality.

>Damn difficult to research a claim like that in scientific
>laboratories. Yet I find myself unsurprised and most certainly not
>rejecting such a claim since to me it seems "theoretically" (or rather
>philosophically) quite possible and even quite likely. Gestalt
>cellular consciousness is no surprise. A brain isn't required for
>consciosuness to exist, in my view. 

Which is supported by the reports of people being "conscious" of
things in hospital situations while their brain is recording no
activity.

>I think the bodies (and brains)
>of animals (including the human animal) works well precisely _because_
>of the cooperative efforts of all the cells communicating
>"psychically". 

Some people suggest such things a "group mind" etc.

>Huff's stuff about weighing the soul is nonsense since soul is clearly
>not of this physical realm, for one thing. Conscious energy
>gestalts not manifest in matter obviously would not have properties
>such as mass and weight. For another thing, IMO, soul is what you are,
>not what you "go into" after death. 

Agreed. One doesn't become a soul. One already is one. Even when
wearing a physical body.

>Modern "official" psychiatry misses the boat, in my view, since it
>allies itelf far too much with chemical treatments and limited
>"acceptable" or "scientifically respectable" views. 

Fortunately, through the ages, there are people who have dared to
question established scientific, and religious, opinions.

>It's unfortunate that revolts against religious dogmas and church
>authority lead so many to reject their own spiritual and
>_psych_ological needs.

"Throwing out the baby with the bath water" ? I agree. 

> I'm reminded of the ancient Greeks who 
>didn't suffer from this modern disease. Socrates, for example, often
>mentioned his "daemon" (or inner spirit guide, if you will) which
>never let him down and saved his life on at least one occasion. 

Spirit guides often help people in a less dramatic way as well. Even
in current times.

>I'm convinced that modern skeptics are just as deluded as religious
>fundamentalists. They are both overly simplistic in their world views.
>There is far more going on than either the atheist or religionist are
>capable of admitting into their narrow world views.

Agreed. Perhaps I can end by quoting Dr Weiss, before he came 
across experiences that suggested the validity of reincarnation 
to him.

"I was left-brained, obsessive-compulsive, and completely skeptical of
"unscientific" fields such as parapsychology. I knew nothing about the
concept of past lives or reincarnation, nor did I want to."

Regards, John.