Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

Trained observer has responded to a question I asked earlier, following this statement of his:

TO: "I see no difference between Christian spiritual fantasies and any other. I'm talking fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems taken as Divine Wisdom or special knowledge."

I asked: "On what basis do you claim that there is "no difference" between "Christian spiritual fantasies" and other spiritual insights and practices developed preeminently in the East? On what bases have you come to the determination that the latter are vested in "fraud, delusion, superstition, and primitive belief systems"? I think you need to make a case for your judgment that there are "no differences" in the range and type of experiences and thought involved in these various paths."

I'm talking about the falseness of the concept of the perfect man, spiritual perfection, god-men, war between ethereal forces of good and evil, spiritual protocols and rituals meant to manipulate supernatural beings,"enlightenment", communion with "divine beings" existing on another plane of existence. It makes no difference where you find this stuff or what flavor it has taken on from its cultural surroundings, it is essentially the same vain pursuit of the human imagination seeking an alternative to an uncomfortable reality and an unwillingness to accept things as they are.

I don't see much connection between the ideas and behaviors you've listed in your new post and the ancient Eastern spiritual philosophies and Mystery Schools. Perhaps we need to take the items in your list one at a time to see if they fit?

My impression of the Eastern tradition is that its thinkers, practitioners, and teachers were more concerned with understanding the nature of reality than with finding guarantees of their continued personal existence beyond death and ways of manipulating imagined spiritual entities to achieve that outcome. Of course, a wide range of ideas is expressed in Eastern thought concerning the problems of good and evil in the world and their possible sources. But self-interest and concerns over personal mortality do not seem to me to be primary considerations. I'm far from knowledgeable about Eastern thought, though, so I may be missing a lot of information you have. Could we explore that list of yours in more detail?

 

[Randall]

Your continued defense of a hypothetical "nutcase" proves you don't get the incredibly damaging effect of such language. Who cares what you think? Not me.

By all means, like the rest of the complainers, feel free to take it up with the moderators or put me on your ignore list. In the meantime I'll enjoy my Looney Tunes as much as I ever did and you can stuff your overly sensitive political correctness.

 

[manxman]

speaking about mods, wheres angel these days.

 

[Constance]

TO, I also want to add a few comments concerning the latter part of your current post:

"It makes no difference where you find this stuff or what flavor it has taken on from its cultural surroundings, it is essentially the same vain pursuit of the human imagination seeking an alternative to an uncomfortable reality and an unwillingness to accept things as they are."

Re what the human imagination seeks, it seems to me that it seeks many things including insight into the nature of reality, inspiring scientists and political theorists, philosophers as well as poets and artists -- indeed, probably all vigorous and serious activity of the mind. It is not 'vain' in those endeavors, and I see no reason why it should be considered vain in spiritual endeavors. What are these 'spiritual endeavors' is perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves if we are to understand all that is subsumed and expressed in the concept and meaning of 'spirituality'. Assuredly, human spirituality in its many forms involves far more than an attempt to strike a bargain with a mental projection in order to outwit death.

 

[Constance]

The word 'spiritual' seems to be a term of vile debasement for you, so much so that you seem to hope it can be obliterated from human language and thought, banished from the world. I wonder how someone gets to the point where he or she has to deny a native human trait -- a manifestly universal one -- so completely that he or she cannot even tolerate discussion of it by others. Now, it's obviously not the case that such persons are uniformly superior in intellect or insight to all others, so this intolerant frame of mind must have its sources in personal psychological issues, something such individuals will have to sort out for themselves.

Do you think your goal of reducing the mind to the brain and reducing the palpable world to a computational mechanism is any less psychologically motivated than the perennial search for a deep understanding of mind and world by the majority of our species? In my estimation your goal seems far more psychologically motivated, rising out of a deep reaction formation to the demands and complexities of actual human existence.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

When I think of the word spiritual I think of this from Wiki "The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]
I've always considered myself spiritual while refusing to tag any religion to that pursuit.

 

[manxman]

When I think of the word spiritual I think of this

dipsy Hippychick

warning above vid could cause a boner, handle with care.

 

[Randall]

When I think of the word spiritual I think of this

dipsy Hippychick type

Hmm ... careful with those labels around here .

 

[manxman]

ok.

i added / edited a disclaimer.

 

[Constance]

Heidi Lemmer's post led me to read the wiki article on Humanistic psychology through her embedded link. Here is the free-standing link. The summary in the wiki article is well worth reading.

Humanistic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Constance]

ufology wrote: Was there a hidden answer to my question in there anyplace? I think I missed it.

Try this: Humanistic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Randall]

When I think of the word spiritual I think of this from Wiki "The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]
I've always considered myself spiritual while refusing to tag any religion to that pursuit.

Heidi, that was positively one of the most reasonable posts I've seen here in far too long. It looks like it was lifted out of Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia does a pretty decent job most of the time, and I don't have any issues with how it's defined above. Now if we simplify by taking out all the religious and supernatural aspects, it would read more like this:

"The use of the term "spirituality" connotes humanistic psychology aimed at personal well-being and personal development."
​

In my view, the condensed version above would include those personality traits generally considered as a healthy part of a normal person's psychology, such as compassion and empathy. So my questions have been something like these: How would saying, "Heidi is a kind spirit." be different than saying, "Heidi has a kind personality." ? Or how is saying, "Heidi values her spiritual well being." different from saying, "Heidi values her psychological well being."? Or if you do something charitable to help someone, and someone wonders why you did that, and another person says it's because you're spiritual, how would it be different than saying it's because you're a kind and generous person?

It seems to me, that when we examine what we really mean by the word "spiritual", unless we're also invoking our religious status, like someone doing a church confession, or wondering if we've been good enough to get into Heaven, or thinking it's good for our karma or dharma or whatever the case may be, the word "spiritual" is indistinguishable from the idea of just being a normal psychologically healthy, happy, caring person. So why would one want to drag all the rest of the extraneous religio-mystic-supernatural baggage around unless it were to impart to others that they were part of that group of believers?

 

[Burnt State]

To aim for the spiritual, or embracing of a spirit, certainly can be confused wth other intangible practices and beliefs, such as religion, or havng an eternal soul, a kind of spirit that resides within. This idea expresses that there is something of the 'creator' within us. After all, we are made up of the same things stars are and sometimes we wee humans forget that we are truly connected to the universe. And because we are connected to the universe we are also connected to each other. This connection means we are part of a living collective of creatures and others of our species, and we impact each other. Caring for, being kind, compassionate and non-judgmental of others, while being good stewards of the land, express our communion with the collective. After all, we're in it together, right?

When I say, it's important for me to be a spiritual being I actually do want you to think about as many of the meanings listed above. There is a plurality to the idea of spirituality, and each person will emphasize different aspects of those spiritual expressions as per their abilities and desires. Some desire god; others desire humanism. Both have labels. Both aim for a 'oneness' or unity.

It is an entirely a psychological state of mind, this sublme feeling of connection, to the collective, to the planet, to myself, to whatever god is if that floats your boat. My favorite mindful expression of spirituality is really just another name for cognitive behaviour therapy. But in the semantics that I procreate with i'd rather say to people that. "It's good to be spiritual," as opposed to being "psychologically good." I think people would look strange at me if I said that.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Heidi, that was positively one of the most reasonable posts I've seen here in far too long. It looks like it was lifted out of Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia does a pretty decent job most of the time, and I don't have any issues with how it's defined above. Now if we simplify by taking out all the religious and supernatural aspects, it would read more like this:

"The use of the term "spirituality" connotes humanistic psychology aimed at personal well-being and personal development."
​

In my view, the condensed version above would include those personality traits generally considered as a healthy part of a normal person's psychology, such as compassion and empathy. So my questions have been something like these: How would saying, "Heidi is a kind spirit." be different than saying, "Heidi has a kind personality." ? Or how is saying, "Heidi values her spiritual well being." different from saying, "Heidi values her psychological well being."? Or if you do something charitable to help someone, and someone wonders why you did that, and another person says it's because you're spiritual, how would it be different than saying it's because you're a kind and generous person?

It seems to me, that when we examine what we really mean by the word "spiritual", unless we're also invoking our religious status, like someone doing a church confession, or wondering if we've been good enough to get into Heaven, or thinking it's good for our karma or dharma or whatever the case may be, the word "spiritual" is indistinguishable from the idea of just being a normal psychologically healthy, happy, caring person. So why would one want to drag all the rest of the extraneous religio-mystic-supernatural baggage around unless it were to impart to others that they were part of that group of believers?

The only thing I'd add which you might differ with is that I haven't ruled out that it's possible to go to other planes of awareness through meditation or for example, taking the layers of learned ideas and losing them while tapping into our senses/awareness to become more in harmony with our surroundings. This all may sound like hippy dippy crap but I think we'd be idiot's to not push ourselves in our development.

 

[Tyger]

Manxman's video sent me to this one.....

Andrea Bocelli - blind - reminded me of this remarkable memoir of a man who was blinded as a young boy. He lived through WWII in Paris. Actually ran a resistance group and was eventually betrayed and ended up in a concentration camp. He survived it all - and what he 'saw' as a blind man is very interesting.

And There Was Light: Autobiography of Jacques Lusseyran by Jacques Lusseyran

"Selected as one of USA Today’s 100 Best Spiritual Books of the Century, this astonishing autobiography tells the gripping, heroic story of the early life of Jacques Lusseyran, an inspiring individual who overcame the limitations of physical blindness by attending — literally — to the light within his own mind. Through faith in the connection between vivid inner sight and outer events, he became a leader in the French Resistance and survived the horrors at Buchenwald."

 

[Tyger]

The word 'spiritual' seems to be a term of vile debasement for you, so much so that you seem to hope it can be obliterated from human language and thought, banished from the world. I wonder how someone gets to the point where he or she has to deny a native human trait -- a manifestly universal one -- so completely that he or she cannot even tolerate discussion of it by others. Now, it's obviously not the case that such persons are uniformly superior in intellect or insight to all others, so this intolerant frame of mind must have its sources in personal psychological issues, something such individuals will have to sort out for themselves.

I had the same impression with the attempt to equate 'spiritual' with a 'healthy psychology'. It's as though the very word 'spiritual' is offensive.

Do you think your goal of reducing the mind to the brain and reducing the palpable world to a computational mechanism is any less psychologically motivated than the perennial search for a deep understanding of mind and world by the majority of our species? In my estimation your goal seems far more psychologically motivated, rising out of a deep reaction formation to the demands and complexities of actual human existence.

It's a strange exercise - because the 'spirit' is removed as a consideration - and yet the very aspects of the spiritual have to be posited to exist but with other language, with ufo's and alien visitations and complex theories to explain all manner of phenomena. There is a disjunct here that doesn't occur to anyone.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

You may be surprised to find that my viewpoint doesn't actually match the accusations made by certain other participants on this thread. I've had more than one experience that people might call mystical, and I'm open to possibilities beyond our immediately observable and measurable universe. So my approach isn't based on denial or closed mindedness or contempt for those who search for "spiritual" answers. In fact I'm the guy who invites the bible thumpers in when they come around knocking, not because I agree with their particular religious views, but because I see them as people who are making a genuine effort to discover greater truths about the nature of our place in the grand scheme of things.

So when I hear you say that you haven't ruled out that it's possible to go to other planes of awareness through meditation, I don't have a problem with that. However because my personal search is also to discover the greater truths I mentioned above, I would question just what we mean by "other planes of awareness". Is it a purely subjective psychological state, or does it represent the perception of an objective reality in another location? The former is immediately believable in terms of the mind's ability to visualize in a realistic manner pretty much anything it wants. The latter however is another matter. How might we establish whether or not it is true that another plane of awareness actually corresponds to some objective reality?

For some, it seems that simply asking these kinds of question is heresy. But I think that experiments that could produce verifiable evidence would be great progress. Does this seem reasonable to you?

I'm completely open to "verifiable evidence " before placing my foot squarely on any subject, but, lol, that too remains fuzzy. Like Ufo's , I feel that testimony has weight. But I really don't worry about my own boundaries on any subject, I'm curious but not hunting for a placemat to sit on. A few examples for me would be that I've attended Satya Sai Baba services, chanted phrases from Nichiren Buddhism, attempted meditation, read Carlos Casteneda, christian services, catholic, lutheran, good lord.....lol. I wasn't meant to be molded into a religion or practice. Maybe I'm eternally lazy. But what all of these experiences showed me was people were trying to reach another state of awareness. I also met the fanatics, those that would sooner shut down diversity almost as though it physically hurt their ears to hear other views. When I jumped into the ufo field I started thinking about telepathy. It comes up everywhere in the field. We don't have verifiable evidence that it's real but we should be open to pursue it. Someone needs to look like an idiot till we figuire it out! So......we have a ton of people out their, some looking really off balance, testing the waters on every possible corner of our imagination. I'm not willing to go check out every corner, but I'm content with them doing what their doing. (obviously an exception is when it's harmful such as heavens gate).

 

[Randall]

I'm completely open to "verifiable evidence " before placing my foot squarely on any subject, but, lol, that too remains fuzzy. Like Ufo's , I feel that testimony has weight. But I really don't worry about my own boundaries on any subject, I'm curious but not hunting for a placemat to sit on. A few examples for me would be that I've attended Satya Sai Baba services, chanted phrases from Nichiren Buddhism, attempted meditation, read Carlos Casteneda, christian services, catholic, lutheran, good lord.....lol. I wasn't meant to be molded into a religion or practice. Maybe I'm eternally lazy. But what all of these experiences showed me was people were trying to reach another state of awareness. I also met the fanatics, those that would sooner shut down diversity almost as though it physically hurt their ears to hear other views. When I jumped into the ufo field I started thinking about telepathy. It comes up everywhere in the field. We don't have verifiable evidence that it's real but we should be open to pursue it. Someone needs to look like an idiot till we figuire it out! So......we have a ton of people out their, some looking really off balance, testing the waters on every possible corner of our imagination. I'm not willing to go check out every corner, but I'm content with them doing what their doing. (obviously an exception is when it's harmful such as heavens gate).

Wow. It looks like Constance and I agree on something again ( we both like your post ). It sounds to me like you have an excellent attitude. I've also experienced and/or considered a lot of things. The thing for me is that after a while, I started running over the same old ground again and again in one form or another, not finding anything new or substantial. In fact, I started encountering good reasons to change my views and to start asking harder questions about what was really going on. Nowadays I still believe strange things happen and am open to what Fox Mulder would call "extreme possibilities", but I no longer simply accept that fantastic and unsubstantiated claims are true.

 

[manxman]

Manxman's video sent me to this one.....

Andrea Bocelli - blind - reminded me of this remarkable memoir of a man who was blinded as a young boy. He lived through WWII in Paris. Actually ran a resistance group and was eventually betrayed and ended up in a concentration camp. He survived it all - and what he 'saw' as a blind man is very interesting.

And There Was Light: Autobiography of Jacques Lusseyran by Jacques Lusseyran

"Selected as one of USA Today’s 100 Best Spiritual Books of the Century, this astonishing autobiography tells the gripping, heroic story of the early life of Jacques Lusseyran, an inspiring individual who overcame the limitations of physical blindness by attending — literally — to the light within his own mind. Through faith in the connection between vivid inner sight and outer events, he became a leader in the French Resistance and survived the horrors at Buchenwald."

aye that was the one that ol sarah first had me standing to attention to tyger.

dust in the wind is my 3rd fav, but it was more hippychick than my second best
this one is class, just brings me up in goose bumps listening to the power in her voice.

thanks to the rest of the peeps here for not moaning at me for posting these vids, but we all are moved in different ways.
both song titles are in perfect harmony the thread discussion, and both will be playing at my funeral service.

 

[nameless]

I'm talking about the falseness of the concept of the perfect man, spiritual perfection, god-men, war between ethereal forces of good and evil, spiritual protocols and rituals meant to manipulate supernatural beings,"enlightenment", communion with "divine beings" existing on another plane of existence. It makes no difference where you find this stuff or what flavor it has taken on from its cultural surroundings, it is essentially the same vain pursuit of the human imagination seeking an alternative to an uncomfortable reality and an unwillingness to accept things as they are.

You don't seriously believe that do you?

Isn't that the point of scientific enquiry?

we don't see things "as they are". Nor do we all see the same things. We can only observe things through the limitation of our senses. We can't see X-rays or dark matter or 90 % of the observable universe but we use our imagination to invent systems and devices to observe these things but still can only see data through the limitation of our senses. I'm not going to go into Hume and phenomenal variability.

If we are using our mind wether it's kooky religious explanations, occult science or general scientific endeavour , then the starting point is how do we explain our selves first and consciousness? and as far as the scientific community is concerned (quantum neuropsychology aside)it is yet to explain or make headway into explaining consciousness. If we are going to start talking about the stuff which is not in our material plain like the stuff in our heads then the best people at explaining consciousness and it's effects and the human condition is Art and Artists, writers, musicians Etc.. And if you want to be pedantic then application of the scientific method in art and the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity to will is the realm of occult tradition which even to the laymen cannot be generalised and put in the same lot as religious doctrine or mediums and witch doctors but the realms of Greco-roman mystery schools, Christian and Jewish cabalists and all those Indo/Asian mathematic cults. While people were waging wars and praying to gods, it was the secret schools which had to occult ideas such as mathematics and alchemical chemistry in the face of a fascist paradigm .

It is worth to bear in mind that the enemy here is a dogmatic belief and a rigid enforced paradigm. We have to be open to ideas but understand that those that have gone before have created maps to consciousness and have given us methodology to test ideas.
Unfortunately some people have a convoluted highly misplaced idea of what science is and what it can achieve, it isn't about truth or hard facts, facts themselves have a half life anyway , science just sets up a model of the world as a best guess and sees if the world matches it . Be more humble. Unfortunately this is seen as failing and an "in" on the part of religious creationist nut jobs and pseudo science quantum esp coast2coast types .


It seems in this thread like in all threads they degenerate into ego battles, blind contradiction and confused definitions based on the loaded expectations and personal interpretations people have on language. thus in part due to how we see the world through words. Some see religion as a made up twisted, doctrine enforcing power and control and the masochism of catholic priests . some may see it as the belief in something else and a tool to get me through a dense fog a guiding light or help and solace in the presence of the unknowable . Is there a way or rules or tried and tested methods to interpret the words which construct reality? I leave that up to however you set your filters and how you learn to spell and load those words .


Ironically we all base our interpretation of this reality at present via language. When people start talking about religion and science I get scared and I see a battle between Darwinists and creationists. I know that this isn't the issue at present but it is real and present danger in our classrooms. If I keep this in mind then this may color my view and belief. Ironically it is a spiritual path which when properly adhered to allows for the introspection and checking of ones ego and prejudices .


Anyway the real talk about consciousness and the only science making any new discoveries that are exciting and important and at all relevant is neuroscience .