The Boy Who Lived Before - Documentary about a childs memories of another life

[Randall]

Ufology,
Here is your link, I bet I find five more in the next two hours. Why not have just googled the matter before placing your foot down your throat? For pete's sake my man, read the Anommolist on a daily basis, you'll find DOZENS of cognizant quirkiness from around the planet and their information is typical 100% legit. I can think of at least half a dozen cases where confused cognitive abilities took place after a patient awake post injury or surgery. This is nothing new! Why would you doubt me in such a condescending fashion? Do you not know this is an insult?

The man with no memory: Navy vet wakes up, speaks only Swedish - CNN.com

Thanks for the link. BTW I did do a cursory search and ran across several alleged cases, none of which seemed to include solid verifiable research. The case in the link you sent" "Navy vet wakes up, speaks only Swedish" isn't a case that demonstrates xenoglossy ( suddenly speaking a previously unknown foreign language ). If you watch the video you'll find that while attempting to reconstruct his past, Boatwright ( his last name ) lived in Sweden during the 1980s and ran a consulting company. Psychologists say he is living in what is called a "fugue state". Why not review your own evidence before as you say: "placing your foot down your throat" ?

On the other personal comments. you seem to be missing the context. We were discussing a particular phenomenon, not the general topic of "confused cognitive abilities". I don't doubt for a moment that people's cognitive abilities demonstrate confusion, and often times no surgery is required. Sometimes I get headaches and I notice that it takes longer for me to recall things and multitasking becomes far less efficient. I also don't dispute that there are phenomena associated with consciousness and memory that give rise to the issues we're discussing. I simply don't leap to any unfounded conclusions about what that phenomena is. So if I come across as condescending, please try not to judge me too harshly. My aim is to remain honest and true, and that offends some people sometimes. If it bothers you, then your best recourse is to provide valid counterpoint. In my world, that is how respect ( or lack thereof ) is earned.

Here, in your response to me, what I sense is someone who's tired and not really filled with curiosity in the least. "mystical jargon"? You mean like "alien craft", or "interstellar travel"? Many, many, many, highly credible scientists will tell you straight out to your face that these terms are NO LESS "mystical, myth inducing, jargon" than what you are claiming to reference in your response. That's just weak.

I'll grant that there are days when I find certain things tiresome ( who doesn't ), especially when one has already "been there and done that" dozens of times only to find the same answers every time. So you see, it's not that I lack curiosity, it's that I've not seen anything new. If I weren't curious you wouldn't see that I have over 3,450 messages posted in the forum and I wouldn't have literally thousands of books, let alone a dedicated website. On the issue of phrases like "alien craft" or "interstellar travel" as compared to Mystical New Age gibberish, you're comparing apples to oranges. Unlike mystical New Age gibberish, the phrases "alien craft" and "interstellar travel" have been well defined and the concepts are explainable in terms that are entirely objective and rational. From that we are able to determine that they are possible, and from there we can examine the evidence using critical thinking in order to determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe it's already happened. Not so with mystical New Age gibberish. Furthermore I would challenge any scientist to make a valid comparison that equates the two classes of language and inquiry. Simply because someone with credentials is offhandedly dismissive doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Thanks for the link. BTW I did do a cursory search and ran across several alleged cases, none of which seemed to include solid verifiable research. The case in the link you sent" "Navy vet wakes up, speaks only Swedish" isn't a case that demonstrates xenoglossy ( suddenly speaking a previously unknown foreign language ). If you watch the video you'll find that while attempting to reconstruct his past, Boatwright ( his last name ) lived in Sweden during the 1980s and ran a consulting company. Psychologists say he is living in what is called a "fugue state". Why not review your own evidence before as you say: "placing your foot down your throat" ?

On the other personal comments. you seem to be missing the context. We were discussing a particular phenomenon, not the general topic of "confused cognitive abilities". I don't doubt for a moment that people's cognitive abilities demonstrate confusion, and often times no surgery is required. Sometimes I get headaches and I notice that it takes longer for me to recall things and multitasking becomes far less efficient. I also don't dispute that there are phenomena associated with consciousness and memory that give rise to the issues we're discussing. I simply don't leap to any unfounded conclusions about what that phenomena is. So if I come across as condescending, please try not to judge me too harshly. My aim is to remain honest and true, and that offends some people sometimes. If it bothers you, then your best recourse is to provide valid counterpoint. In my world, that is how respect ( or lack thereof ) is earned.

I'll grant that there are days when I find certain things tiresome ( who doesn't ), especially when one has already "been there and done that" dozens of times only to find the same answers every time. So you see, it's not that I lack curiosity, it's that I've not seen anything new. If I weren't curious you wouldn't see that I have over 3,450 messages posted in the forum and I wouldn't have literally thousands of books, let alone a dedicated website. On the issue of phrases like "alien craft" or "interstellar travel" as compared to Mystical New Age gibberish, you're comparing apples to oranges. Unlike mystical New Age gibberish, the phrases "alien craft" and "interstellar travel" have been well defined and the concepts are explainable in terms that are entirely rational. From that we are able to determine that they are possible, and from there we can examine the evidence using critical thinking in order to determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe it's already happened. Not so with mystical New Age gibberish. Furthermore I would challenge any scientist to make a valid comparison between the two classes of language. Simply because someone with credentials is offhandedly dismissive doesn't mean they're right.

I will ignore your typical chiding. Not all of us have the time to sit on our ass all day and just play forum. Please quote me where it states that this gentleman was fluent in Swedish as well as English due to his stay in Sweden. Now he's completely fluent in Swedish and doesn't know a lick of English. Was he fluent in Swedish Ufology? Then while you are at it, check out the other 10,000 cases on google and get back with me.

How about this case: Australian student wakes up from coma speaking fluent Chinese - NY Daily News

and this one: Teen Wakes from Coma Speaking Fluent German - ABC News

While you're at that, since you seem so hungry for knowledge, and even hungrier to supply the answers, let me know how it is the prodigy children are born with complete working understandings of everything from geography to perfect pitch musical abilities with no prior exposure whatsoever.

Boy, it must really be something to have so much time on your hands Ufology.

 

[Randall]

I will ignore your typical chiding. Not all of us have the time to sit on our ass all day and just play forum. Please quote me where it states that this gentleman was fluent in Swedish as well as English due to his stay in Sweden.

Hey, you started it. If you want to kick it up a notch be prepared for a comeback. On your request for the video stating specifics, that isn't necessary. Only a small amount of brain power is required to put 2 + 2 together here. In the video you posted the link to, at 11 seconds in we see his U.S. Passport and Veteran's Affairs picture ID card. So it's %99.999 safe to assume that he's an American citizen, and therefore was exposed to, if not fluent in the English language.

At 40 seconds in we hear how a hospital social worker helped him setup a Facebook page to help recover his identity and that during the 1980s Boatwright lived in Sweden and ran a consulting company. Again we can be %99.999 safe in assuming that he was immersed in the Swedish language and that as a consultant he would have picked up more than few phrases. Dig deeper and find those who knew him in Sweden and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that he had at least a basic working knowledge of the language. His amnesia has also been diagnosed and he's working toward recovery. So far, I see nothing mystical or paranormal about this case. I just hope the poor guy gets it together again.

Now he's completely fluent in Swedish and doesn't know a lick of English. Was he fluent in Swedish Ufology? Then while you are at it, check out the other 10,000 cases on google and get back with me.

Given that he was a consultant in Sweden, I'm not at all surprised that he spoke Swedish fluently. Nor should you be, and don't be absurd. I'm not about to waste my time sifting through 10,000 more cases to end up at the same dead end over and over. If you're so interested in this, just find me one example with some substantial evidence.

How about this case: Australian student wakes up from coma speaking fluent Chinese - NY Daily News

Do you even read these articles? It says right in the article, "The college student studied Mandarin in high school, but the language had never clicked." and that he had a Chinese nurse. Obviously while in his coma his brain was sorting out his language and that may have been reinforced by subconsciously hearing his Chinese nurse conversing in the language. Again, this is interesting, but there's insufficient reason to assume something mystical or paranormal is going on.

and this one: Teen Wakes from Coma Speaking Fluent German - ABC News

And yet again: "A Croatian teenager awoke from a coma last week to find she could no longer speak in her native Croatian -- but was fluent in German, a language she had just started studying in school, the U.K. press reports."

While you're at that, since you seem so hungry for knowledge, and even hungrier to supply the answers, let me know how it is the prodigy children are born with complete working understandings of everything from geography to perfect pitch musical abilities with no prior exposure whatsoever.

Perfect pitch is a natural ability based on physiology and brain function. It can be acquired with or without training. It's not anything "mystical". As for the rest, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that like the rest of these examples, there's more to the story than meets the eye. Mere hearsay and urban legend aren't sufficient reasons to conclude that something mystical or supernatural is behind any of it.

Boy, it must really be something to have so much time on your hands Ufology.

It would be even better if I only had enough time and money to do everything else I should do, but short of winning the lottery, I just don't have the resources. Participating in the Paracast is inexpensive and helps me keep my brain active. Still, I'll probably be taking another hiatus from the Paracast in the near future to catch up on the 8 million other little things on my to-do list.

 

[Jeff Davis]

1) I am just making it clear that I truly believe you to be impressed with and by yourself. That's all. You have yet to be correct about anything. You don't seem to really "think" as much as you do "respond" defensively. I read you recently commenting on right and left half of the brain orientation, do you have any right half orientation? If you do, you desperately need to practice slowing it down a bit in an effort to grasp concepts that thus far you seem only able to scorn by calling mysticism. It's all very unattractive.

2) Do you personally know anything about linguistics? If so I am certain that you are aware of the physical attributes of that which are inflection and formative tongue muscle development that typically takes place in childhood, correct? Why when these people awoke, who incidentally have NEVER in any case discussed between us so far been shown to have KNOWN or PRACTICED the languages that they awoke newly speaking as your ignorance professes here. How do you explain the fact that these people are now FLUENT in these languages Ufology? Fluency is something in linguistics that defines a persons functionally developmental tongue musculature. When a person learns a new language, it takes YEARS as an adult to overcome a strong accent. Ask any actor. It's serious stuff, just as is ANY specialized vocal training. You could not be more WRONG. There is just this MONSTROUS difference between the concepts of "learned", "known" as opposed to "exposed", "started to study at school" You talk about mysticism, brother, they could call you, "dealer of the cosmic debris" and they would be just getting warmed up.

Shall we get into inflection Doctor? Why don't you just for once, address an actual point that I am raising at this forum, rather than dodging them by contributing your typical per-prepared, "non mystical brand" of reality as Ufology see's fit to preach it?

3) Do you know what the word "Paranormal" means? Further, do you understand that something is no longer paranormal once it's definition has been established? That's when it becomes "normal". Do you understand that to believe alien spacecraft exist is no less delusional than ANYTHING that you refer to here regularly as "mysticism" or "gibberish"?

4) Honestly, your reply to the "prodigious child" consideration is simply too bizarrely mundane to even address. You just don't get it.

5) As I stated. You have yet to be correct about any point that I have addressed, although, we are all admittedly delusional for being here. Do you understand that?

6) Do you know what a high horse is?

7) Are you afraid of heights?

8) When I count to three, I want you to jump...

Dude, get a grip and join the group! This isn't "The Ufology Show", starring some fictional self styled comedian from the 70s. I am not letting you take the fun out of this for me any longer. Your ego man, holy catastrophes.

9)I'm sorry, but you had this coming. I still apologize.

10) Out.

 

[Michael Allen]

2) Do you personally know anything about linguistics? If so I am certain that you are aware of the physical attributes of that which are inflection and formative tongue muscle development that typically takes place in childhood, correct? Why when these people awoke, who incidentally have NEVER in any case discussed between us so far been shown to have KNOWN or PRACTICED the languages that they awoke newly speaking as your ignorance professes here. How do you explain the fact that these people are now FLUENT in these languages Ufology? Fluency is something in linguistics that defines a persons functionally developmental tongue musculature. When a person learns a new language, it takes YEARS as an adult to overcome a strong accent. Ask any actor. It's serious stuff, just as is ANY specialized vocal training. You could not be more WRONG. There is just this MONSTROUS difference between the concepts of "learned", "known" as opposed to "exposed", "started to study at school" You talk about mysticism, brother, they could call you, "dealer of the cosmic debris" and they would be just getting warmed up.

Shall we get into inflection Doctor? Why don't you just for once, address an actual point that I am raising at this forum, rather than dodging them by contributing your typical per-prepared, "non mystical brand" of reality as Ufology see's fit to preach it?

I think this would be a good place to introduce the "language instinct" and "universal grammar." Children are born with the internal structures that allow them to acquire their native language at an amazing rate. Also there's evidence that the neurological structures set in place in a child's early development begin to be recycled (i.e. neurons die) from the age of about 6-8 and onward. Certainly there is no mysticism in this--however this does not rule out another entity (wherever, ET, etc) might try to take advantage of this and make the individual a subject of experimentation.

The somatic "sorting out" of languages only partially is very interesting from the UG point of view. I cannot but wonder if there's a kind of auxiliary backup mechanism that tries to pull the disparate parts of the language module together after a traumatic incident has partially obliterated other segments of the same. This may mean something as simple as a chemical trigger activating in the region of adult-acquired languages (not their primary tongue) and coupling an expanded Broca's area with the primary somatosensory and motor cortex regions. I would love to see more research in this area.

 

[Michael Allen]

Simply because someone with credentials is offhandedly dismissive doesn't mean they're right.

Oh don't get me started....

One of the things I have noticed about "specialists" and "experts" is that the more intensely they are immersed in their respective fields, the more they are oblivious to realities that wind in and out of the same. A person with credentials is more likely to give a programmatic dismissal of new or novel phenomenon than the average lay person or generalist. This programmatic response is reinforced partly by the laurels and accolades of their peers, and partly by the disapproval and denunciations of their tenure-hungry competitors who lay in the shadows ready to pounce and poke holes in their latest publications. Offhand dismissals are usually the result of the application of a formula like "arguing adds warrant to the opponent's position."

 

[Michael Allen]

3) Do you know what the word "Paranormal" means? Further, do you understand that something is no longer paranormal once it's definition has been established? That's when it becomes "normal". Do you understand that to believe alien spacecraft exist is no less delusional than ANYTHING that you refer to here regularly as "mysticism" or "gibberish"?

I would be careful with the "paranormal/normal" distinctions -- they appear to be arbitrary and almost entirely dependent on the world-view of the subjects who hold such distinctions in mind. Definitions have been established (and were used extensively in investigation) regarding the meaning of "UFO" and even proffered for potential extants as "Extra-Terrestrial" (pretty clear) or "Extra-Terrestrial Space Craft." These definitions, while not always in reference to something actual, are nevertheless not illogical or mystical. There is nothing mysterious about an entity that is sentient, thinks, produces and builds other things like spacecraft (again, not mysterious) to the end of transporting themselves from one location to another. Mysticism might lay claims that one could "travel through the ether" or "through the astral plane" from "one realm to another" and yet still the mysticism is only as muddy as the terms, "ether", "astral", "plane", or "realm." So in that respect, something paranormal might be showing itself under your formula equating definition establishment with "normal." There are plenty of things in the world that are not normal, but aren't paranormal either--by any definition. Once again, the idea of "paranormal" is not the literal meaning "abnormal" or "preternatural," but more like "uncomprehensible." And since "comprehension" is something that changes over time in human beings, the categories therefore are as "ethereal" as the boundary that separates them. More interesting is the myriad of phenomenon considered "normal" that is passed over in silence by the gold fevered 49ers of novelty.

 

[Randall]

1) I am just making it clear that I truly believe you to be impressed with and by yourself. That's all. You have yet to be correct about anything. You don't seem to really "think" as much as you do "respond" defensively.

Not really. If you review my posts you'll find I've responded with evidence by way of quotations from the video and articles you yourself provided.

I read you recently commenting on right and left half of the brain orientation, do you have any right half orientation? If you do, you desperately need to practice slowing it down a bit in an effort to grasp concepts that thus far you seem only able to scorn by calling mysticism. It's all very unattractive.

• Mere proclamation and subjective value judgements aren't valid counterpoint.
• I don't scorn mysticism. I analyze the claims and provide answers. You not liking the answers doesn't qualify as me being scornful.
• I'm not concerned whether or not my view is attractive ( well maybe I am more concerned about formatting than most people ), but mostly I'm more concerned about getting at the truth.

2) Do you personally know anything about linguistics? If so I am certain that you are aware of the physical attributes of that which are inflection and formative tongue muscle development that typically takes place in childhood, correct? Why when these people awoke, who incidentally have NEVER in any case discussed between us so far been shown to have KNOWN or PRACTICED the languages that they awoke newly speaking as your ignorance professes here. How do you explain the fact that these people are now FLUENT in these languages Ufology? Fluency is something in linguistics that defines a persons functionally developmental tongue musculature. When a person learns a new language, it takes YEARS as an adult to overcome a strong accent. Ask any actor. It's serious stuff, just as is ANY specialized vocal training. You could not be more WRONG. There is just this MONSTROUS difference between the concepts of "learned", "known" as opposed to "exposed", "started to study at school" You talk about mysticism, brother, they could call you, "dealer of the cosmic debris" and they would be just getting warmed up.

Shall we get into inflection Doctor? Why don't you just for once, address an actual point that I am raising at this forum, rather than dodging them by contributing your typical per-prepared, "non mystical brand" of reality as Ufology see's fit to preach it?

You might want to check out the Wikipedia article on fluency before presuming that your particular notion of it is applicable to this discussion, not to mention that the evidence we're dealing with isn't based on the verifiable evaluation of linguists who have studied the cases in detail.

3) Do you know what the word "Paranormal" means?

Yes.

Further, do you understand that something is no longer paranormal once it's definition has been established? That's when it becomes "normal". Do you understand that to believe alien spacecraft exist is no less delusional than ANYTHING that you refer to here regularly as "mysticism" or "gibberish"?

You're asking a loaded question. Perhaps you should try restating it.

4) Honestly, your reply to the "prodigious child" consideration is simply too bizarrely mundane to even address. You just don't get it.

Simply stating that I "don't get it" isn't valid counterpoint. Valid counterpoint consists of addressing the issue and the particulars of the point made and explaining why you think it is insufficient or in error. Try that instead.

5) As I stated. You have yet to be correct about any point that I have addressed, although, we are all admittedly delusional for being here. Do you understand that?

It sounds a little off the cuff, perhaps intended with a little humor. I'm good with that .

6) Do you know what a high horse is?

Something like this?

7) Are you afraid of heights?

That depends on whether or not there is any danger. I don't sense any danger.

8) When I count to three, I want you to jump...

Drum roll ...

Dude, get a grip and join the group! This isn't "The Ufology Show", starring some fictional self styled comedian from the 70s. I am not letting you take the fun out of this for me any longer. Your ego man, holy catastrophes.

Comedian? Catastrophe? Are you telling me you didn't like the horse joke ?

9)I'm sorry, but you had this coming. I still apologize.

Don't sweat it. We self styled comedians from the 70s have had decades of desensitization ... Watergate, Chernobyl, Tiananmen Square, Boy George ...

10) Out.

Be man ...

 

[Tyger]

Science and/or critical thinking can be applied to virtually any issue or phenomenon, and by doing so our understanding about them becomes clearer. The only exceptions ( although it could still be argued otherwise ) might be purely subjective emotional phenomena for which understanding requires direct firsthand experience. The only "narrow parameter" about them are that their goal is to move us closer to understanding the truth. However in our search for truth, that is perfectly acceptable and important. Sure, we can abandon our search for truth and step into the realm of fiction, myth and superstition, or bask in the wondrous experience of the moment. These things also provide enjoyment in life. Provided we're clear on the differences between these modes of operation, we can reap the benefits of both.

It's not that I couldn't untangle this, it's just that the time it would take - not enough time - though if I was being paid, I'd give it a crack.

Science is a method - not a cosmology. Just because it's been overlaid with all kinds of 'stuff' doesn't make it more than it is - a method of research and approach, and pretty darn important. Critical thinking is for sure a skill-set everyone needs - but it's like you've taken one finger of a five-fingered hand and are running with it, calling it the whole hand. Critical thinking is just one part of a complex skill-set.

MYSTICAL WARNING: MYSTICAL STUFF BEING TALKED ABOUT BELOW -

Knowing that you are not conducive to such language - 'gibberish' to you because very difficult to comprehend, I know - just to say - for the hey - 'emotional' at the level of the 'adept' is perhaps a misnomer. The emotional body undergoes a transformation - by virtue of the 'inner work' of the 'mystical scientist' - and that 'emotional body' that we use to feel anger and fear and hatred and annoyance - is no more. That 'emotional body' - by stint of considerable very precise work (as demanding and unforgiving as any you might come across) - becomes an organ of perception where the soul/spiritual world is percieved objectively. The 'emotional body is no longer used subjectively to indulge, but to observe objectively, albeit in the non-material realm. Such work requires tremendous inner command - and is fraught with pit-falls. Once one crosses that threshold, however, a stunning shift in praxis occurs. It is 'hidden' only because of the very definite laws that govern this area - no one can force entry, especially not via the lower, concrete mind. For those who hear and understand, they will proceed. For those who have not yet developed the incipient capacity, it's a longer road but the moment of entre is inevitable.

For some reason I have the impulse to say - and risk derision, but so it is - that innumerable texts warn of the dangers far along this path to the threshold - and one of the most distressing moments of transformation is the splintering of the emotional body creating what resembles a psychotic state. (A very uncomfortable condition to be in - even and certainly painful - creating all manner of problems with feeling and thinking separated). The saving grace is that the individual is undergoing this 'training' consciously and so is bracing for this 'dark night of the soul'. It's a catastrophic state of being, though a necessary moment before final command is achieved. Suicidal panic and despair, however, are merely indications that the soul is on the verge of a great breakthrough. Unfortunately, few people are actually consciously 'in training' and our current medical science - being material based - does not recognize that a great soul process is occurring - and - to be expected - drugs are applied to dampen down the psychological and emotional pain.

This is the threshold that is being crossed - unprepared. With no 'training' - no inner knowing - all sorts of wild speculations get floated (usually materially based ideas) trying to give a rational context for what is being seen and experienced. Generally, however, the experiences are shut down with drugs and the person tries to stuff the genie back into the bottle, as it were, attempting to be 'sane' (by the parameters of those caught 'under the glass ceiling' - who see no further than the soul - who will not or cannot suss out the spirit from the threads of their being).

To be clear, this is a point of great danger - real derangement is possible - and absolutely clear thinking and rigorous discernment is required. The world of material-based science can feel like heaven under one's feet after meeting the very real 'guardians of the threshold' - spoken and written about across centuries. It is a point where delusionary thinking is risked - and we are seeing it everywhere. Inner command, however, bears fruitful release - the poetically expressed, 'die before your death'. It is at this stage that one bears personal knowledge of the spirit - in the same way one bears personal knowledge of the physical universe in the physical body. It is at this juncture - if successfully negotiated - that the human being becomes cognizant in all realms while still in the physical body. This is the eye-of-the-needle - and it is not for the faint-of-heart. It is a great divide - for there will then be those who know, and those who do not (yet). We are all destined for this moment - it's just a question of when the moment comes - prepared or unprepared.

As I say, I realize this will all be incomprehensible for many, but I find it - if not real - an interesting heuristic devise - as much as the scientific method is, and the scientific approach - which can be so comforting. In the abstract - in the ideal - the scientific modality is pure poetry. It's basic alignment is in keeping with what is needed at the most dire of moments in every inner journey. It all works together - with a little perspective, discernment and humor.

 

[Randall]

It's not that I couldn't untangle this, it's just that the time it would take - not enough time - though if I was being paid, I'd give it a crack.

Wouldn't that be just great? Perhaps all we need is a good agent.

Science is a method - not a cosmology. Just because it's been overlaid with all kinds of 'stuff' doesn't make it more than it is - a method of research and approach, and pretty darn important. Critical thinking is for sure a skill-set everyone needs - but it's like you've taken one finger of a five-fingered hand and are running with it, calling it the whole hand. Critical thinking is just one part of a complex skill-set.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, " Sure, we can abandon our search for truth and step into the realm of fiction, myth and superstition, or bask in the wondrous experience of the moment. These things also provide enjoyment in life. Provided we're clear on the differences between these modes of operation, we can reap the benefits of both."

Knowing that you are not conducive to such language - 'gibberish' to you because very difficult to comprehend, I know - just to say - for the hey - 'emotional' at the level of the 'adept' is perhaps a misnomer. The emotional body undergoes a transformation - by virtue of the 'inner work' of the 'mystical scientist' - and that 'emotional body' that we use to feel anger and fear and hatred and annoyance - is no more. That 'emotional body' - by stint of considerable very precise work (as demanding and unforgiving as any you might come across) - becomes an organ of perception where the soul/spiritual world is percieved objectively. The 'emotional body is no longer used subjectively to indulge, but to observe objectively, albeit in the non-material realm. Such work requires tremendous inner command - and is fraught with pit-falls. Once one crosses that threshold, however, a stunning shift in praxis occurs. It is 'hidden' only because of the very definite laws that govern this area - no one can force entry, especially not via the lower, concrete mind. For those who hear and understand, they will proceed. For those who have not yet developed the incipient capacity, it's a longer road but the moment of entre is inevitable.

I'm trying really hard to get this and I think it's starting to come to me ... I feel a strange tingling sensation on the top of my head ...

For some reason I have the impulse to say - and risk derision, but so it is - that innumerable texts warn of the dangers far along this path to the threshold - and one of the most distressing moments of transformation is the splintering of the emotional body creating what resembles a psychotic state. (A very uncomfortable condition to be in - even and certainly painful - creating all manner of problems with feeling and thinking separated). The saving grace is that the individual is undergoing this 'training' consciously and so is bracing for this 'dark night of the soul'. It's a catastrophic state of being, though a necessary moment before final command is achieved. Suicidal panic and despair, however, are merely indications that the soul is on the verge of a great breakthrough. Unfortunately, few people are actually consciously 'in training' and our current medical science - being material based - does not recognize that a great soul process is occurring - and - to be expected - drugs are applied to dampen down the psychological and emotional pain.

Wow! I suddenly just got it. It's like some kind of profound spiritual awakening! At first glance the importance of our ethereal levels of existence is hidden among the vibrations of the transcendent ego. This causes the spirit to dissociate from the higher frequency leaving the physical self to wander aimlessly between quantum realities. Only by tuning our chakras to a holistic metaphysical paradigm can it hope to find oneness with the universal truth. Why didn't I see it before! Thank the Goddesses, this hasn't been a complete waste of time after all !

This is the threshold that is being crossed - unprepared. With no 'training' - no inner knowing - all sorts of wild speculations get floated (usually materially based ideas) trying to give a rational context for what is being seen and experienced. Generally, however, the experiences are shut down with drugs and the person tries to stuff the genie back into the bottle, as it were, attempting to be 'sane' (by the parameters of those caught 'under the glass ceiling' - who see no further than the soul - who will not or cannot suss out the spirit from the threads of their being).

And conversely, as these energies merge with the consciousness of our inner selves, the threshold of awareness becomes transcendent and we are liberated from the chains of reductionist philosophy.

To be clear, this is a point of great danger - real derangement is possible - and absolutely clear thinking and rigorous discernment is required. The world of material-based science can feel like heaven under one's feet after meeting the very real 'guardians of the threshold' - spoken and written about across centuries. It is a point where delusionary thinking is risked - and we are seeing it everywhere. Inner command, however, bears fruitful release - the poetically expressed, 'die before your death'. It is at this stage that one bears personal knowledge of the spirit - in the same way one bears personal knowledge of the physical universe in the physical body. It is at this juncture - if successfully negotiated - that the human being becomes cognizant in all realms while still in the physical body. This is the eye-of-the-needle - and it is not for the faint-of-heart. It is a great divide - for there will then be those who know, and those who do not (yet). We are all destined for this moment - it's just a question of when the moment comes - prepared or unprepared.

Brilliant just brilliant. There's just no way anyone can scientifically dispute your point without defying Heisenberg's String Theory, which any scientist will tell you is impossible.

As I say, I realize this will all be incomprehensible for many, but I find it - if not real - an interesting heuristic devise - as much as the scientific method is, and the scientific approach - which can be so comforting. In the abstract - in the ideal - the scientific modality is pure poetry. It's basic alignment is in keeping with what is needed at the most dire of moments in every inner journey. It all works together - with a little perspective, discernment and humor.

Now that I've got it. I couldn't agree more. Where I once saw no humor whatsoever, I now see delicious layers of spiritual irony nestled between savory slices of quantum parody, topped with karmic repetition and sprinkles of elemental pixie dust. I know this seems almost impossible to comprehend, but I know your soul has the potential to transcend the narrow confines of your temporal paradigm and find joy in the freedom of pure expression of the true self.

 

[Tyger]

You're hopeless, Ufology. Have it your way. I knew - given what I've experienced this far from you around this topic - that you would be derisive. You are as nested in a belief system as any of the rest of us slobs, to be pitied equally among the laboring masses of which we all are a member, trying to make our way and make sense of the between here and now and the there and then.

What I've presented is a fitting together of what I have gleaned from a great many sources, ancient, not-so-ancient and current processed through my filters, subject to my ability to understand. Based on some of my experiences, this paradigm has great persuasiveness - and, as stated, is a handy tool - a heuristic devise - to consider, no more, no less. I find it as fascinating - and, personally, a bit more useful than, but just as fascinating as, the idea of alien civilizations zippa-dee-doo-dah-ing around the cosmos. I am most definitely interested in reasoned debate - not knee-jerk reactions to terms and phrases and being painted with a broad brush of ridicule. Hardly 'scientific', that.

Materially-based thinking has so removed us from our subtle selves that we now interpret references to spiritual realities in ancient documents as though the ancients were aliens at our stage of primitive rocketry.

We all have our slipping points. I recall a friend telling me the story of a scientist colleague who he greatly admired. The man was a beacon in his field of considered and intelligent research. He was a joy to have in-depth discussions about all manner of topics and one could rely on him to be well-balanced and fair in his responses to any and all ideas. One day, after a particularly long day at the lab, my friend and his colleague were unwinding at the local bar. In a state of expansive relaxation this colleague began to share his idea for contacting alien civilizations. (My friend was momentarily unsettled as he had not been aware that his colleague even harbored such considerations as 'alien civilizations'). Well, it seems, this dearly respected colleague was keen on having NASA build an electrical sign on the moon - a big one - that would flash out a message to alien civilizations concerning our presence in this solar system. At first my friend thought he was being put-on - but he wasn't. His colleague was quite serious. So there you go. (But who knows, maybe he was onto something - in fact, isn't flashing light sequences part of the ufo mythos for contacting aliens?)

Maybe what I have relayed above is my 'electrical flashing sign on the moon to contact aliens' moment. Quite possible. After all - where are the Egyptian Gods? Where are the Norse Gods? Why aren't people reporting experiences with Thoth - or Valhalla? As it happens current 'spiritual scientists' do have proffered explanations for why the stories of the 'afterlife' shift and morph across civilizations. Pretty interesting considerations. (Hint: it is suggested that at that level we create our own reality).

In the end, I myself take refuge in scientific thinking when the rigors of the 'inner work' are onerous - especially when confronted with paranormal craziness. Scads of crazy ufo people shouldn't stop research into ufos - as you lament may be happening due to all the bad press and crazy stuff. Because there are people who co-opt language - or in their struggle to understand misconstrue does not make the science any less or the 'mystic' perspective any less, either. (All the wild and wooly YouTube videos you can find notwithstanding - there's nothing 'scientific' about sampling YouTube videos - and becomes a strange source to become informed on anything imo. A lot of chaff amongst the wheat methinks).

Anyway, what a more interesting conversation this would have been had you been more forthcoming and conversational - rather than hectoring and didactic at all turns - apparently in an attempt to corral people into a particular chute for what you consider the coup de grace to their 'faulty' thinking. Anyway, that's what it seems. I am actually very interested to know what exactly your experience has been that made you say early on that you had been where I am - aside from the fact that you don't actually know where I am - what is it about what is being said do you identify as 'where you were'? What was that? How did you get there? And what was your turning point? I have an inkling it was painful - just a hunch. The inner realm is no simple matter and inevitably - in our current medical paradigm and social dysfunction - drugs often figure in the scenario one way or another.

Here's some great art. LINK:

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets

And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

 

[Randall]

You're hopeless, Ufology. Have it your way. I knew - given what I've experienced this far from you around this topic - that you would be derisive.

What? Don't tell me you didn't like the horse joke either? ( in this post above )

You are as nested in a belief system as any of the rest of us slobs, to be pitied equally among the laboring masses of which we all are a member, trying to make our way and make sense of the between here and now and the there and then.

Speak for yourself. I use a system of analysis not a system of belief. From analysis one can identify which things are more reasonable to believe than others.

What I've presented is a fitting together of what I have gleaned from a great many sources, ancient, not-so-ancient and current processed through my filters, subject to my ability to understand. Based on some of my experiences, this paradigm has great persuasiveness - and, as stated, is a handy tool - a heuristic devise - to consider, no more, no less. I find it as fascinating - and, personally, a bit more useful than, but just as fascinating as, the idea of alien civilizations zippa-dee-doo-dah-ing around the cosmos. I am most definitely interested in reasoned debate - not knee-jerk reactions to terms and phrases and being painted with a broad brush of ridicule. Hardly 'scientific', that.

"Hardly 'scientific', that." you say? Well Yoda, here's another one you might want to remember: "To be Jedi is to face the truth, and choose. Give off light, or darkness, Padawan. Be a candle, or the night."

Excerpt from One of Us

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

Interesting that you should post that song ( good tune BTW ). Did you know it was actually written by one of the members of a band called The Hooters? Anyway, I don't know if you ran across my post where I mentioned that once upon a time I had an archetypal religious experience? It put me in exactly the position of the opening verse, and I had more than one question ( I bet you never saw that coming ). While we're on the topic of songs connected to The Hooters, and you seem to enjoy some of their art, here's one of my favorites ...

Where Do The Children Go​

Click here for another classic performed by Cyndi Lauper and
also co-written by one of the Hooters​

 

[Tyger]

Speak for yourself. I use a system of analysis not a system of belief. From analysis one can identify which things are more reasonable to believe than others.

Ooopsie - a little slip there. You use a system of analysis to determine what to believe - and you think that makes you different from everyone else? As though no one else has a system of analysis? Your system of analysis is better, I'm guessing.

"Hardly 'scientific', that." you say? Well Yoda, here's another one you might want to remember

Rather than make senseless remarks about speaking/writing style (which might be culturally based), why not start to look at how thought/mind works. Start to look at what you think of as critical thinking - start to look at how you use your mind, rather than the content so much. You might find yourself intrigued by what you find.

I can recommend a book to get you going: "Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind" by Arthur Zajonc, Professor of Physics at Amherst College.

Anyway, I don't know if you ran across my post where I mentioned that once upon a time I had an archetypal religious experience? It put me in exactly the position of the opening verse, and I had more than one question ( I bet you never saw that coming).

I recall you mentioning it - but I don't know what an "archetypal religious experience" is honestly. Care to describe it?

 

[Randall]

Ooopsie - a little slip there. You use a system of analysis to determine what to believe - and you think that makes you different from everyone else? As though no one else has a system of analysis? Your system of analysis is better, I'm guessing.

No slip. I said "determine which things are more reasonable to believe than others." with a specific twofold intent, the first of which is to relay the idea that it is possible to make such a determination, and secondly to imply that such determinations aren't always absolute.

Rather than make senseless remarks about speaking/writing style (which might be culturally based), why not start to look at how thought/mind works. Start to look at what you think of as critical thinking - start to look at how you use your mind, rather than the content so much. You might find yourself intrigued by what you find.

Perhaps you missed the link I posted earlier to the Foundation For Critical Thinking, which outlines it's elements and standards.

I can recommend a book to get you going: "Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind" by Arthur Zajonc, Professor of Physics at Amherst College.

Perhaps I'll check it out at the library or bookstore. Thanks for the recommendation.

I recall you mentioning it - but I don't know what an "archetypal religious experience" is honestly. Care to describe it?

I use the word "archetypal" almost synonymously with "typical", as in typical of what one might expect from experiencing the presence of God as outlined in biblical mythology e.g. burning bushes, pillars of fire, auras of light, voice of God coming from the sky etc. ). Do I care to describe it? I seldom go into it in much detail because I don't want to come across as someone trying to create some kind of cult following based on the experience. I wasn't told to go forth and spread the word to the four corners of the Earth. I wasn't given any super powers. I can't prove any of it. But had it not happened I wouldn't be here today.

Lastly, you couldn't be more wrong about me being derisive or scornful. I have the greatest of respect for those who undertake a genuine journey toward truth and meaning, and I wish you nothing but well if that's what you truly believe you're doing. Perhaps someday you'll look back at this discussion and see it in an entirely different light .

 

[Michael Allen]

I recall you mentioning it - but I don't know what an "archetypal religious experience" is honestly. Care to describe it?

I think of an archetypal religious experience as a sudden awareness that your own being is intrinsically the entire universe looking at itself. Since all events in the known universe are thought to be causally interconnected, the lines between "yourself" and "other" become fuzzed. This realization comes at a point in a person's life when they've thought through the toy theories concerning the "mental" and "physical" stuff. Ironically it is the final dismissal of the categories created by spiritualist's insistence on the mental--i.e. vs physical--that causes this final satori--or awakening. Of course once this awakening occurs it becomes nothing special--since it was your true "nature" all along. This mind that is constantly searching and looking for answers to questions and things is often the very thing that stands in the way of the experience. Mystics and self-proclaimed shamans and mystical-meme-mancers might try to encapsulate the "message" or key that leads to your eventual "transformation" to this state of mind, however its one thing to say "I am one with the universe" another to find oneself spontaneously realizing it while shoveling dirt on the side of a hill.


A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"



Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"


The Real Miracle

When Bankei was preaching at Ryumon temple, a Shinshu priest, who believed in salvation through the repitition of the name of the Buddha of Love, was jealous of his large audience and wanted to debate with him.

Bankei was in the midst of a talk when the priest appeared, but the fellow made such a disturbance that bankei stopped his discourse and asked about the noise.

"The founder of our sect," boasted the priest, "had such miraculous powers that he held a brush in his hand on one bank of the river, his attendant held up a paper on the other bank, and the teacher wrote the holy name of Amida through the air. Can you do such a wonderful thing?"

Bankei replied lightly: "Perhaps your fox can perform that trick, but that is not the manner of Zen. My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."


Temper

A Zen student came to Bankei and complained: "Master, I have an ungovernable temper. How can I cure it?"

"You have something very strange," replied Bankei. "Let me see what you have."

"Just now I cannot show it to you," replied the other.

"When can you show it to me?" asked Bankei.

"It arises unexpectedly," replied the student.

"Then," concluded Bankei, "it must not be your own true nature. If it were, you could show it to me at any time. When you were born you did not have it, and your parents did not give it to you. Think that over."

 

[Tyger]

I think of an archetypal religious experience as a sudden awareness that your own being is intrinsically the entire universe looking at itself. Since all events in the known universe are thought to be causally interconnected, the lines between "yourself" and "other" become fuzzed. This realization comes at a point in a person's life when they've thought through the toy theories concerning the "mental" and "physical" stuff. Ironically it is the final dismissal of the categories created by spiritualist's insistence on the mental--i.e. vs physical--that causes this final satori--or awakening. Of course once this awakening occurs it becomes nothing special--since it was your true "nature" all along. This mind that is constantly searching and looking for answers to questions and things is often the very thing that stands in the way of the experience. Mystics and self-proclaimed shamans and mystical-meme-mancers might try to encapsulate the "message" or key that leads to your eventual "transformation" to this state of mind, however its one thing to say "I am one with the universe" another to find oneself spontaneously realizing it while shoveling dirt on the side of a hill.

I have no quarrel with the thrust of your premise - it is the raison d'etre of the mystical experience and path of development. I think we are all at heart mystic knowers. Then there is the Devotional or Path of Love. One has only to fall genuinely in love, or be genuinely loved - to make all the words go away.

As the Sufi Master said, the path to God is as varied and many as there are human hearts. As Rumi said -

I am so close, I may look distant.
So completely mixed with you, I may look separate.
So out in the open, I appear hidden.
So silent, because I am constantly talking with you.

I will be waiting here
For your silence to break
For your soul to shake
For your love to wake.

Finally -

At the end of my life,
with just one breath left,
if you come,
I’ll sit up and sing.

~ Rumi


There is a difference between the Mystic Path, the Devotional Path and other paths as well as the Occult Path (which I have been alluding to - particularly Western). One is the path of Contemplation, one the path of the Heart, the other is the path of Knowledge - all play their parts. The Path of Knowledge is a particularly thorny one - where the Intellect has to be actively - by an act of Will - infused with Heart Forces else a great tragedy is afoot - as in evidence our current world dilemmas.

As always, just my opinion. Subject to caveat and revision.

Like the following story you shared. How much we get in our own way -

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

[Randall]

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

So how might we interpret the above? I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I see it as an allegory, the intent of which is to deliver a point. What point might that be? How about this? The professor came seeking knowledge. Therefore the tea represents knowledge, and the message appears to be about leaving one's preconceptions on the doorstep in order to make room for new ideas. For most people that's where this story probably ends. But there's more to it than that. How many people ask what the cup represents? It seems pretty obvious to me that if the tea represents knowledge then the cup represents the container in which we hold that knowledge, and in the most general sense, that container is our mind. So we might now pose the question: How can we make our mind work in a way that equates to a "fresh cup" for each new pot of tea? Or in everyday terms, how can we use our mind to acquire new and meaningful knowledge with the least amount of preconception? Below is a list of possible candidates:

1. By applying beliefs based on unsubstantiated claims.
2. By making assumptions based on religious faith.
3. By starting with a preconceived conclusion.
4. By applying proven methods of objective analysis.

Your choice ? ( Open to anyone of course and feel free to offer other possibilities if they fit. )

NOTE: It is interesting that with respect to choice 4. above, we find ourselves in a bit of a paradox. Would anyone else care to comment on that?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Just as a quick observation, btw, I love you Ufology, whether you realize it or not. I am not giving up hope on you no matter how stuck in the dark ages of contemporary empirical science you are. To be honest with you bud, you've quasimodoed 95% of that science by adapting it to fit your views anyway. Just like the rest of us and that's all I care about. A level playing field of speculative input, and most importantly, respectful consideration.

It's rather crazy that in all this consciousness discussion, "observational based cultural context", is pushed somewhat to the side. The very fabric of reality has been demonstrated to be ambiguously subjective at best by more than credible scientific sources over the last 30 years. I wonder how much difference that makes to the Aboriginal Bush Peoples and their perception of a dignified reality in the out back of Oz?

Real Phenomenology can be used to study the formative building of such perception based contexts. Civilizations rise and fall within the phenomenological aspect of consideration.

I think history will bear out that the ego's instinct driven cognition paved the way long ago for what would later crumble, and give way, under the weight of humanities conqueror-esque barbaric, fear and greed driven manifestation known as the material wheel. That, or you could point to, as Jim Marrs has about a trillion times, that it's all by design, and that the wheel by it's very definition is the ultimate commercial representation. More important than money itself. Perpetual wear out makes for a killer repeat customer base. Repeat customers are what businesses feed on. Banks feed on businesses and before long it's one big "let them eat cake" spectacle to a commercial ends wherein the rich keep their power while the fields surrounding them are burnt away for their ends. It's one big, "to be continued" commercial scam in which to them, we seem to have this affinity for survival. As long as it works to ultimately serve their purpose, who cares?

This, IMO, is the only real reason why, what I might clumsily call the "facilitative human consciousness sciences" that Quantum Mechanics allows for analogous explorations within, are not functioning mainstream sciences right now a thousand times over. One, it makes us all equal, and two, it provides zero commercial benefit to the Machiavellian management cause.

I highly recommend this author, http://jimmarrs.com/ and the his work titled, The Rise of the Fourth Reich, it's well researched contents are mind blowing. I can't state enough good about Jim Marrs. He would give Richard Dolan (who's a PRICELESS MONSTER, albeit a sell out to 3pom) a serious run for his money on his best day.

 

[Michael Allen]

So how might we interpret the above? I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I see it as an allegory, the intent of which is to deliver a point. What point might that be? How about this? The professor came seeking knowledge. Therefore the tea represents knowledge, and the message appears to be about leaving one's preconceptions on the doorstep in order to make room for new ideas. For most people that's where this story probably ends. But there's more to it than that. How many people ask what the cup represents? It seems pretty obvious to me that if the tea represents knowledge then the cup represents the container in which we hold that knowledge, and in the most general sense, that container is our mind. So we might now pose the question: How can we make our mind work in a way that equates to a "fresh cup" for each new pot of tea? Or in everyday terms, how can we use our mind to acquire new and meaningful knowledge with the least amount of preconception? Below is a list of possible candidates:

1. By applying beliefs based on unsubstantiated claims.
2. By making assumptions based on religious faith.
3. By starting with a preconceived conclusion.
4. By applying proven methods of objective analysis.

Your choice ? ( Open to anyone of course and feel free to offer other possibilities if they fit. )

NOTE: It is interesting that with respect to choice 4. above, we find ourselves in a bit of a paradox. Would anyone else care to comment on that?

While I think your line of thought is interesting, the story can also just mean "shut up and drink your tea." The professor was probably so busy talking and babbling about his thoughts he forgot to drink his tea ("empty his cup") .

The cup/mind notion is actually a trap the Zen teacher wants the unwary student to fall into--so yes, you are right about the allegory, but the realization of the same is not really the point. Indeed its the paradox in (4) that probably will trip up the student. Where are the "proven" methods? The student who thinks they should keep their cup filled or empty is missing the point entirely...the world and the mind are not separate and yet not the same. Not two, not one...As one teacher put it, "you nothing more than a swinging door..."

In the course of one's life, the cup is empty, the cup is full, the cup is half-empty, the cup is broken, the cup is sitting still in the cupboard, the cup is handed from one person to the other, the cup is overflowing...all are part of the cup's nature and neither state is a simple logical negation of the former. If you want to break up the world through vivisection then try to fill a cup by attaching and gluing sides to a block of water--you can't do it. Neither can you box your own mind with your mind.

 

[Michael Allen]

The very fabric of reality has been demonstrated to be ambiguously subjective at best by more than credible scientific sources over the last 30 years.

Jeff, this is a very funny self-defeating proposition-- if true then it would not need to be demonstrated; If demonstrable by a "credible scientific source" then it would not be true.

"The very fabric of reality has been demonstrated to be ambiguously subjective...."

Then the subject himself who is doing the demonstration cannot show the subjectivity...*brain aneurysm* this is so....hilariously...wrong!

A demonstration is precisely the inter-subjective component that makes this statement hilariously false. You can't have the demonstrable (inter-subjective = objective) or the credible (inter-subjective) without throwing away the "ambiguous subjectivity"