(not) proof of heaven (for me)

OBE's, NDE's, lucid dreams, and the like...

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby treasuretheday » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:48 pm

Geesh! Didn't mean to open a can of worms. There is space for both exploration and pursuit of knowldedge and the surrender to & embrace of not-knowing. Life is full of riddles and paradox.
Life itself is the proper binge.
-Julia Child
User avatar
treasuretheday
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:42 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby Webwanderer » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:55 pm

Well ... it's quite straightforward.

If the thorn is removing the thorn it means it is removing itself.

It doesn't mean you are crotcheting with it !!!


Ride, if that's the way you see it, fine. That's your prerogative. However, I see that the thorn itself isn't removing another thorn of its own accord. It's being 'used' to remove a troublesome thorn. Thus, using the mind's quality of reason to review and possibly remove existing belief structures that only serve to inhibit a greater clarity of perspective.

Aren't metaphors, by their very nature, anything but straight forward?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby randomguy » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:12 pm

Still there is something to exploring and understanding the mystery beyond just blank observation.

Blank? Shocking, 2W. On the contrary, I surely fail to express how captivatingly, pregnantly unblank is observation.

Geesh! Didn't mean to open a can of worms.

Treasure the worms! :)
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby Webwanderer » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:42 pm

randomguy wrote:
Still there is something to exploring and understanding the mystery beyond just blank observation.

Blank? Shocking, 2W. On the contrary, I surely fail to express how captivatingly, pregnantly unblank is observation.

If your observation is 'un' blank. What then is its captivating and pregnant qualities?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby randomguy » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:49 am

If your observation is 'un' blank. What then is its captivating and pregnant qualities?


Those are adjectives that seem to fit the appreciation of observation in the balance of the observed perception of a one who holds notions about a world observed. I wouldn't assign rules of qualities per se. Yet in experience captivating in the sheer mystery of the presence of the observing itself and pregnant with the totality of it's reach when revealed that all observed is also the observing, that is to say awareness.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:50 am

randomguy wrote:Those are adjectives that seem to fit the appreciation of observation in the balance of the observed perception of a one who holds notions about a world observed. I wouldn't assign rules of qualities per se. Yet in experience captivating in the sheer mystery of the presence of the observing itself and pregnant with the totality of it's reach when revealed that all observed is also the observing, that is to say awareness.

Thanks for using your rational mind in offering that well expressed statement of your quite understanding on the nature of blank observation. Kudos. :D

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby randomguy » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:13 am

If I stepped into your trap, then I am happy to play along. You are welcome.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:14 am

I'm glad to see the discussion is of interest, and to see the unfolding of robust discussion.

In terms of proof & evidence, interesting that the OJ Simpson trial was raised. After the event there was some call for US criminal law to adopt an element contained in Scottish law that allows for acquittal by reason of 'not proven' - the three options for a judge or jury in Scotland allow for
Proven (guilty) - as in the prosecution has proven the circumstances of a crime committed, by whom and how - beyond reasonable doubt even after considering all of the evidence of the defence.
Not guilty - acquittal by the means of the defence having proven beyond reasonable doubt the innocence of the accused, even after considering all of the evidence of the prosecution.
Not proven - acquittal by the virtue of neither the prosecution or the defence proving their cases beyond a reasonable doubt (and the notion of fairness that ten guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man being punished for a crime not proven beyond reasonable doubt).

In terms of cultural, religious, educational etc bias of perspective some folks are uncomfortable with this third 'state', this uncertainty in conclusion, and it falls heavily into a notion of preferring to claim absolute right or wrong, even where the evidence does not fully support it - it's more a close enough is good enough and choosing the path of least personal and cultural resistance. It is this in some jurisdictions that have led innocent people to be punished and guilty people to go unpunished.

While the 'not proven' live with the uncertainty - agreed not always pleasant an experience for the accused or the community living with the uncertainty. If you look at the wiki entry about it Sir Walter Scott called it the bastard verdict, meaning it - assumption of guilt or innocence, has no 'legitimate' (legalised) parentage in acceptable society.

On the topic of nde etc I do live with the uncertainty, the 'not proven' nature of it being either 'in the brain' in a way that we don't fully comprehend, or proof of eternal life in a way that we don't fully understand. I am able to weigh up evidence within these three notions - proven to be true, proven not to be true, and not proven beyond reasonable doubt either way. Which is why I can veraciously state where something has been proven to not apply, or prove a hypothesis, as well as those that do, if they do beyond reasonable doubt.

Also interestingly in the wiki discussion there is this analogy to science
The "not proven" verdict has been used in popular writing[citation needed] (as by Carl Sagan) as a metaphor for the operation of the scientific method, in which conclusions are never absolutely certain, but the most that can be said about a theory is what the preponderance of the evidence suggests.


Interesting hey?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:04 am

part of my 'musing' post reading the book.

...
After reading Dr Alexander's book, it has been niggling at me .. the answer is hidden in plain view, and therefore is not hidden at all, and it might have something to do with the capacity of our 'reptilian brain'.

I don't know if anyone will be able to follow this, what's been niggling at me since reading his book and realising that it is not proof of an 'afterlife', not even valid evidence of it in my understanding, and in being able to evaluate it, I am more clearly able to evaluate my own by the same standard, and I am struggling to collapse it...

So I need to turn a few things upside down - and argue elements of both sides of the discussion, possibly upsetting - both sides of the discussion :wink: oh well...

Yes nde is NOT a true indication of what happens after death, biologically and neurologically, it's not. It's more proven by the evidence not to be, than to be.

What then do we do with the altered awareness and the information gained with/in it - it's NOT a delusion or fantasy of imagination, it's absolutely quantitatively real -the overwhelming evidence is that it is real, and it's accurate information - more accurate than many could credence or accept individually.

We have to accept on the weight of evidence that our brains, in some states are able to access eternal 'now-oneness' (eternal as in not confined in notions of beginning, middle and end - past present and future), and interpret all perspectives of a 'thing' without bias - instantly. When I used to hear that humans only use 10% of their brain capacity I used to wonder what on earth the other 90% was doing :wink:

What if instead of the brain being 'diminished' in capacity, it is 'heightened' in capacity? A 'niggle' in Dr Alexander's telling is his lack of testing the theory of the properties and abilities of the 'lower' functions of the brain when the higher 'human' properties are switched off (as his were) or compromised as many others are in validated reports of this experience.

Add to this the 'human arrogance' that I 'know' is 'wrongly' applied to the consciousness and intelligence of other species and matter of creation based on the 'simple' nature of their biology, which science itself in various fields is now correcting - in terms of complex communication systems of some of the most 'simple' brain or molecular structures outperforming our own abilities in areas (eg: bees, bacteria, crocodiles, birds, plants to name a few where studies are correcting our own ignorance/arrogance.)

When Dr Alexander dismissed the 'reptilian' brain as a possible conduit for this degree of complex information processing - (okay I know 'reptilian' is a 'label' and crocodiles have a cerebral cortex)
but on reading this, on instinct my 'layperson' brain went ...hang on a minute one of the 'queries' is how we are able to see/process the past-present-future in that state - memory can explain past and present, but not future.

Precognition is central to many other aspects at similar dispute - accurate precognitive information of the 'future' is also deemed 'irrational', 'delusional' etc and yet there is overwhelming (55 million years worth) of proof that crocodiles females- do that every breeding season - they have to collapse past-present-future and 'predict' 80 days into the future how high the tides will flow during the 80 day incubation period + how high they will be at the time of their eggs hatching... otherwise their eggs will be washed away in floods or high tides with water level changes from the time of laying to the time of hatching; but they need their hatchlings to be as close to the water as possible at birth or they will become prey to predators while on land. They 'predict' with incredible accuracy in different seasonal conditions; the perfect balance between three 'tidal marks'(laying, highest tide, hatching) - and they create a suitable different nesting site every two years and have done this as a species for 55 million years - on instinct - which is processing and applying past-present-future collapsed information effortlessly.

In fact noticing the success and accuracy of their 'predicting' was an early seasonal weather prediction tool for early man - and smarter not so early fisher people, that co-inhabit croc infested waters, by the placement of the nests man could be aware of how high, and therefore how plentiful water would be in the season as an accurate weather predictor, drought if it was low, flooding if it was high.

This 'instinctive' processing is also in evidence across the animal world and indigenous cultures - see this paper on the success of animals and indigenous 'simple' people responding in advance of natural 'disasters', with greater accuracy than many more 'complex and sophisticated' tools and calculations outside of 'now' http://www.unep.org/training/programmes ... sponse.pdf

Further research on the reptilian brain capacity that Dr Alexander dismissed as being capable of allowing and generating the information flow he received at the degree that he did - even though they were the only 'viable' working parts of his brain at work. I found this... and want to turn it upside down, but I don't really know what I'm talking about 'scientifically'.

Brain scientists call this brain model The Triune Brain - 3 brains in one. (This way of looking at the human brain introduced by Dr. Paul MacLean, director of The Laboratory of Brain Evolution and Behavior).

The most inner section, like the hard seeds of an apple, is called the reptile brain, because it looks like and functions like the brains of snakes, lizards, and reptiles. It computes only basic survival, self-defense and counter-attack. Famous Neuroscientist joke: "The reptile brain computes the four F's of behavior- fighting, fleeing, feeding and reproduction." It merely reacts with the rest of the universe- no thinking, no new ideas- just reacting with the ancient primeval programming "It is 100% competitive consciousness, and only computes 'me-me-me' types of behavior" - an excerpted chapter (23)
from Neil Slade's book Brain Magic


While I can 'marry' the notion of 'no thinking, no new ideas ... primeval programming' - which appears to include
- the awareness of time and space collapsed - information available to us 'now' without separation of perspectives and impression of past,present,future; I want to 'correct' that its not within an area of high consciousness-cognitive functioning, it just looks easy compared to our more 'clunky' so called 'higher level' processing which separates, labels and delineates things. (self less awareness)

Hence that notion that a craftsman at one with his craft makes a thing look easy, there is no 'separation' between him and creation. What was totally understood in collapsed equilibrium 'in the light' is ridiculously complex to 'explain' if one separates the parts of it. The 'slowing down' and funnelling that he, and I, have described is this (from my layman understanding) supposed 'higher' order processing, not the instinctive 'lower' order functioning - of which by his own investigations were deep enough to not be affected by the invading bacteria.

Help!! anyone with understanding of the workings of the brain!!

Could this then mean, that the 'neo cortex, the part of the brain that makes us human' is not the part of the brain that makes us conscious? And, if so, what would it mean for neurological studies?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby SandyJoy » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:03 am

I have to mention this before I go on here -- I don't think Dr.Eben was trying to prove anything to his readers, I think he was just writing the story of what happened to him. I appreciate that. I appreciate that his near death experience allowed him the freedom from his science and his peers ridicule to write his story. I am sure he did see that Life is eternal. He has the proof, he knows. I have no doubt. He does not have to prove it to me. I already know it's true.

Now, besides all that I wanted to share this for whatever it's worth;

I think science follows, it does not lead. For now, science is beholden to the limited mind-set of human mistaken beliefs. It cannot break free, until we break free. It follows our beliefs like the wake of a ship. As we awaken to the Truth, and as we find Reality, and as we, individually, discover for our self that Life is eternal, then science will reflect that Truth.

The fact that science can now reach the edges of the Universe is a reflection of the expanding awareness of or as each of us. Slowly, as more and more realize that Life is eternal, we will one day see the glimmer of Life's eternity through the veil that stands between what we call 'life and death'. Science will follow, it will appear that science has cut through the veil but that event will happen as a reflection of the growing numbers of individuals making the personal discovery first. Kind of the hundredth monkey thing.

As we adjust to our knew visions and insights that happen on the inside of us, and as each individual breaks into new inner territory, those new visions and new ground will appear as science making some major leaps into the unseen vistas, new dimensions and new spaces here in the tangible world.

I cannot put any faith in science, in government, in human institutions because, for me, I see those institutions as the screen on which the condition of our heart and mind are seen. They will be and do exactly in line with what we are.

Science, government, human institutions are not the leader, not the initiator, they do not cause anything, they do not really discover anything, they only appear to. Institutions are the reflection of our state of beliefs. Those institutions at this time appear as the tangible evidence of man's conditioning and beliefs that have not broken free as yet.

Some day when we are free from the false beliefs, we will see science and government appearing as that freedom expressed in divinely righteous, honest and good institutions.

Eventually, as life unfolds backwards toward the Truth which is already here at hand, we will see we are the king, each one individual ruler of his world. Self-realized, we will pick up our scepter and reign in the honest light of Reality. The glory will be seen as the appearance of the old institutions changing or falling away entirely.
Last edited by SandyJoy on Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
You are not finished, until you play in that meadow and live there. You can, you know. But only you can take yourself there.
User avatar
SandyJoy
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby rideforever » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:28 am

Webwanderer wrote:Ride, if that's the way you see it, fine. That's your prerogative. However, I see that the thorn itself isn't removing another thorn of its own accord. It's being 'used' to remove a troublesome thorn. Thus, using the mind's quality of reason to review and possibly remove existing belief structures that only serve to inhibit a greater clarity of perspective.

Aren't metaphors, by their very nature, anything but straight forward?

WW

No. The meaning of this statement is very clear. If it had been "use a thorn to remove a splinter" then your interpretation would have been correct.

But the old masters constructed their sayings so that they would not be misinterpreted.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby randomguy » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:41 pm

ww wrote:Thanks for using your rational mind in offering that well expressed statement of your quiet understanding on the nature of blank observation. Kudos.

May I ask you in return, how is observation blank? This seems to me such an unlikely perception. Blank of what, blank of what is observed? How can this be? Do you mean to say it is rendered blank in the absence of an interpretation?

jen wrote:Hence that notion that a craftsman at one with his craft makes a thing look easy, there is no 'separation' between him and creation. What was totally understood in collapsed equilibrium 'in the light' is ridiculously complex to 'explain' if one separates the parts of it.

I think this is great. I'm stepping out of the original context a bit but I feel this is similar and relevant. Awareness is simple. Reality is simple. Yet it is the conceptual reconstruction and modeling of the experience of it that is complex and never absolutely accurate. I understand you are talking about an NDE experience and the realizations therein. Yet experience and realizations occur now, yes? And there is awareness of experience now? So I think it is not so different. The thing about experience is that it's uniqueness it does not last. We are not talking about an NDE experience right now. We are discussing accounts of NDE experiences, memories of the experience. What I notice is that experience appears ever changing. Not only experience, but so too does realization dawn and fade. Like thoughts realizations come and go and like thoughts realizations are among of the freely observed.

What is left is the question of mining the memory for the meaning and truth or as it was stated earlier for the understanding of the experience. The question I would like to ask is what is that understanding, I mean the nature of understanding itself? What is the nature of it and what is the attraction to it about?

joy wrote:Slowly, as more and more realize that Life is eternal, we will one day see the glimmer of Life's eternity through the veil that stands between what we call 'life and death'.

And here to me is the most interesting of all. The veil between life and death. This is the thing of interest isn't it? Death that event in the future, the super-ender. Without the fascination on this line drawn where life ends, wouldn't NDE accounts be simply more descriptions of the fantastic experiences of existence? A discussion of proof would be nearly irrelevant wouldn't it?

Let's just say for simplicity that 100% of all NDE accounts are accurate descriptions of the experience observed and all instruments accurately reflect an absence of brain electricity. Wouldn't the experience of awareness with no brain electricity simply mean that previously held to as assumptions about what death is and consequently also what "we" are ring with suspected inaccuracy? Wouldn't those assumptions be the things of question, the assumptions of what we commonly call "death?" I think it would. It's what we do it seems thought, live with unquestioned assumptions. On this matter, NDE seems to me a useful topic on how assumptions are investigated. What if what we call death is just sort of like a conceptual line through a story of an experience?

Could this then mean, that the 'neo cortex, the part of the brain that makes us human' is not the part of the brain that makes us conscious?

Perhaps more assumptions exist here related to the popular fascination with the notion of brain as the origin of consciousness and humanity.

It has shocked many here that I still do not know if my / his / others' nde's are 'proof' of life after death

It seems to me that there can never be proof of such a thing because "life after death" can only exist as a state within one's imagination sponsored by unquestioned assumptions about the nature of experience and time. The mythic thing not observed but assumed in this logic is the never ending experience. Ever see such a thing? But there is no problem, I mean, If I thought that NDE evidence was proof of living forever, then I'd just sound like a guy on a quest for the key to immortality and that's not so bad. I'd sound like that until the experience changes to something else.

A guy is falling through the air. He has been falling his whole life, in this world just pretend there is no ground. He is falling and a girl who is also falling drifts over to him. She notices that he is pulling up on his shoelaces really hard. The girl asks, "Why are you pulling up on your shoe laces?" The guy says, "This is how I'm not hitting the ground. This is how I live forever."
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:12 pm

randomguy wrote: ww wrote:Thanks for using your rational mind in offering that well expressed statement of your quite understanding on the nature of blank observation. Kudos.

May I ask you in return, how is observation blank? This seems to me such an unlikely perception. Blank of what, blank of what is observed? How can this be? Do you mean to say it is rendered blank in the absence of an interpretation?

Yes, blank of interpretation or interaction. Life becomes more engaging as we give meaning to experience. That's not to say everything observed requires our focused attention, but focus is observation's magnifier.

Each of us are free (unless we assume otherwise {We are after all, free to imprison ourselves in thought jails.}) to perceive conditions as we choose. Granted, conditioning plays a role, but that conditioning is the result of earlier choices on our perception of past experience. Not to make those choices tends to make experience blank or bland. Imagine aliens landing in your front yard and being totally neutral and unmoved by it. "Aliens, how nice, I think I'll have lunch now." Forgive the hyperbole.

I see that there is a balance between skills of clear observation and consciously applied meaning to whatever events unfold in our lives. The nature of our experience is dependent upon how we interact with events.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:34 pm

:D I'm buzzing with excitement for the kaleidoscope of perspectives being shared, and the spiderweb lines and globs arising, but that's beside the point/s :D It's exactly the sort of discussions Dr Alexander hoped for, and please don't anyone feel concern for 'branching' the topic out and in, it's all good!!

Sandy said: I have to mention this before I go on here -- I don't think Dr.Eben was trying to prove anything to his readers, I think he was just writing the story of what happened to him. I appreciate that. I appreciate that his near death experience allowed him the freedom from his science and his peers ridicule to write his story. I am sure he did see that Life is eternal. He has the proof, he knows. I have no doubt. He does not have to prove it to me. I already know it's true.


Absolutely I appreciate him sharing his personal story, and without doubt his professional knowledge as well. It truly was a 'perfect' nde for the study of it, and the personal experience of it. Although Sandy he himself gives the reasoning behind sharing his story - and the awareness of the difficulties doing so would bring (for self and others), and the benefits that doing so would bring (for self and others).

He was aware that the perfection of his experience flies in the face of accepted scientific reasoning, disproving some of it upon which other decisions are made and based some of it is sublime in its perfection; and he realised that he had ignored masses of this 'evidence' prior to his own experience in his 'skeptical but good-naturedness', which he realised wasn't real skepticism but intellectual arrogance. Having experienced his own intellectual arrogance without malice he could see the 'difficulty' others in his field would have letting go of their sense of 'error' in judging these things. He recognised the humor-irony, pathos of the perfection of his situation.

He decided, as a healer and a scientist, as one committed to honoring truth and helping to heal he had to tell his story, and he had to be full bodiedly honest about it. Before publishing he experienced a different level of relating and understanding with others in his field, and realised errors in his thinking with previous relating, with his patients etc
because of their awareness of his 'new' real openness, others could be more open with him... it does, and doesn't matter, but it does, and doesn't matter.

Furthermore its interesting that he did and discusses an analysis of his possible 'audience' groups- he noted loosely three groups - the believers for whom this would be just another story that they could easily absorb within their own experience and 'knowledge'; as an audience group what he was writing would be all but nothing new.

At the other end some of the hard closed to even questions, let alone the possibility of different answers - especially on the 'enigma of consciousness' but also as the first group 'know' what they know, that it filters through, within, above, under, and out of every other thing and every other decision we as a species, make. If they even 'bothered' to read it, as he himself had had a 'scientific' opinion about such things in the past without even bothering to read or really listen with any intention of understanding, he knew they would find fault because he knows it fails the 'tight' tests of scientific evidence and dismiss it.

He wrote his book for those in the middle - he aimed it at the audience undecided, spiritually and scientifically, those who know they don't know if that makes sense. He wrote it for those who would be able to understand/comprehend his journey from unbelieving to believing, from suffering to freedom, from innocent ignorance/arrogance to awareness of the wider picture.

For me I had to smirk a little and 'razz' at him a little - 'coward' :wink: - when folks have asked me to share of my own experiences they've assumed I would want to write them for the first audience (preaching to the converted) or the second group holding open scepticism, but in truth, while I dip my toe in those camps, my life has continuously head on collided and shaken up the ones who are closed, because that's how powerful the knowledge is and that's where the power of the seed of it could be of most use to 'everything' - in medicine, science, law, justice, governance, media, relating, living. (not egotistically and not without a whole truck load of hesitation and angst at times) Through participating in, and through sharing of, some of the 'extreme' experiences of my life and my 'willingness' some really hard nuts have cracked open in love and awareness all by them self.

Further to this that it's not just 'personal' Dr Alexander realised we had to rework the 'data' and it has to take into account science and spirit, so he has started an organisation called Eternea, that will bring together (he hopes) the brightest minds in science and religion/philosophy with an aim of unpacking and starting over, sort of.

Also related to this, and I guess as something I hold myself to, also in Scots law there is a difference in terms of what is allowed into evidence and instructions on their 'weight' in consideration to some other jurisdictions. It's a notion of personal testimony - a thing cannot be 'proven' (in the three verdict system) by one person's testimony alone, even if that testimony is deemed to be truthful and believed. I guess it's this that aligns it with the scientific modelling. What Dr Alexander (and others) describe as their experience that is 'unwitnessed' by another may be believed, but it is not 'proven' absolutely (as I absolutely accept the integrity of his recollections, and my own, but also understand how/why science and justice would not consider them 'proof'.

In a Scottish court however unless one can prove another to be 'lying' or 'delusional' or 'mistaken' that cannot be held true either, and so there is an openness to the 'verdict' rather than forcing a thing into 'innocent' or 'guilty' 'true' or 'not true'. So if there was one witness to a crime and no other supporting 'proof', it might be believed, but it will not be found 'proven' in terms of committing anyone for the offence.

It's this, in his case he is battling with, and hopefully will be able to find more 'evidence' for his 'case'.

In my 'case' I already have 'supporting evidence' and that is the two or three independent witnesses that heard me state things I could not have physically or cognitively 'known' by science/medicine understanding of cognitive ability and the physical properties of the human body and its sensory system, when I was coming around.

And it was this that made the doctors urge me to investigate 'what happened'. It wasn't so much that it could 'enlighten' me any more than I already was, but that it could 'enlighten' them, science and medicine. Because of this 'element' of it, they, even the tightly closed of mind prior to that had their world view cracked wide open.

It would stand up as verifiable fact, in a Scottish court of law, and would be taken as 'proven' under the rules of evidence.
In other jurisdictions it may not even be allowed to be presented. It wouldn't however 'prove' anything about the nature of death, only about the nature of life, or capacity of it. All of my 'knowledges' and observations in the light could be offered as supporting testimony, other people's observations and movements etc could too, but it couldn't be accepted on its own as 'proof'. The comments I made however, in particular 'please, please, don't let them turn that machine off until I can see him properly' could not by any understanding be from anything other than the 'supporting' personal testimony that allows me to explain it. It's also possible, and I'm tossing up with getting my medical files, that there may be some further clinical evidence of the account of when he and I left my body.

So again for me, it's not 'what' that is at dispute, it's 'how'. The 'what' might be entirely personally known, but the 'how' is universal, and likely to impact upon the view of 'what' - if that makes sense.

This knowledge, if filtered into wider society would filter into those institutions that could do the most good with it, globally.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: (not) proof of heaven (for me)

Postby smiileyjen101 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:09 am

before I lose the other inspirations from the unfolding spider web globs...

randomguy quoted and wrote:

joy wrote:
Slowly, as more and more realize that Life is eternal, we will one day see the glimmer of Life's eternity through the veil that stands between what we call 'life and death'.


And here to me is the most interesting of all. The veil between life and death. This is the thing of interest isn't it? Death that event in the future, the super-ender. Without the fascination on this line drawn where life ends, wouldn't NDE accounts be simply more descriptions of the fantastic experiences of existence? A discussion of proof would be nearly irrelevant wouldn't it?


webby quoted and wrote:
Randomguy wrote:May I ask you in return, how is observation blank? This seems to me such an unlikely perception. Blank of what, blank of what is observed? How can this be? Do you mean to say it is rendered blank in the absence of an interpretation?


Yes, blank of interpretation or interaction. Life becomes more engaging as we give meaning to experience. That's not to say everything observed requires our focused attention, but focus is observation's magnifier.


Collapsing these ^ is further 'complicated/explained/discussed' in elements of the book -
Dr Alexander wrote: (p143) (with my italics, where I could have done 'this' - meaning is ...(?) labelling by perspective, so don't get hung up on the 'label')

...Because I experienced the non-linear nature of time in the spiritual world so intensely, I can now understand why so much writing on the spiritual dimension can seem distorted or simply nonsensical from our earthly perspective. In the worlds above this one, time simply doesn't behave as it does here. It's not necessarily one-thing-after-another in those worlds. A moment can seem like a lifetime, and one or several lifetimes can seem like a moment. But though time doesn't behave ordinarily (in our terms) in the worlds beyond, that doesn't mean it's jumbled, and my own recollections from my time in coma were anything but.


Our notions of 'eternity' are based on linear time, and eternity it seems in this state of awareness is not (necessarily) linear, although it is eternal in the sense of no beginning no end - just IS - and perceivable by focus-attention.

Eternity in that perception is all NOW, whether its recognised and experienced in awareness or not, in a linear nature or not. Niggling for me is that even with this new understanding through experience he still falls to a) using the parts of the brain that 'make' time linear, b) to explore the probability within the parts of the brain that make time linear, in an effort to understand the experience within which time is not linear - of course it won't be found there (it isn't there), and that's why it hasn't been found there before this, if that makes sense -

... The more I learned of my condition, and the more I sought using the current scientific literature to explain what had happened, the more I came up spectacularly short. Everything - the uncanny clarity of my vision, the clearness of my thoughts as pure conceptual flow - suggested higher, not lower, brain functioning. But my higher brain had not been around to do that work.
The more I read of the 'scientific' explanations of what NDEs are, the more I was shocked by their transparent flimsiness. And yet I also knew with chagrin that they were exactly the ones that the old 'me' would have pointed to vaguely if someone had asked me to explain what an NDE is.


He also discusses how it's always 'right here-now' not somewhere - sometime other than here/now.
To my 'thinking', it aligns with nondual and spiritual notions of a quiet mind - not being empty, albeit empty of separating thoughts, but being full of awareness.

He also discusses the psychic awareness-presence of interacting while in that state, which in my own journey is 'interesting' to note.
My most this-wordly anchors in my experience, temporally speaking, were my interactions with Susan Reintjes when she contacted me on my fourth and fifth nights, (which he details in his account using the terminology that 'she had sat down at her home in Chapel Hill and 'willed' herself into my presence') and the appearance, toward the end of my journey, of those six faces. Any other appearance of temporal simultaneity between events on earth and my journey beyond it are, you might say, purely conjectural!

^ This part quoted in the book comes between the two quotes above, reorganised in my processing. It also led him to rethink his closed skepticism of other 'unexplained' by science elements - (my add - or explained with 'transparent flimsiness' based on evidence).

How this all comes kind of full circle for me is it is in this no-thought awareness state that the mystics or the gurus etc talk of as being transcended from person-al perception .... (whatever) and being in the oneness (non dual ?) state.

In awareness of synchronicity, clair abilities, precognition, extreme physical/mental/emotional empathic linking, it's this state from which and in which these things are experienced in their purity (across time/dimension) - when we then 'notice' or perceive it as object-subject, the 'accuracy' of interpreting and translating it through our slower cognitive functioning is what makes your brain ache (kidding) and attach emotions to it by the stimuli.

He also discusses Susan's work as an 'intuitive' - just the use of that particular word, in conjunction with the notions about what the lower 'intuitive' brain is and is not capable of.. tickles. I haven't read her book Third Eye Open.

I also find this interesting that
she terms 'communicating with a coma patient is a little like throwing a rope down a deep well. How deep the rope needs to go depends on the depth of the comatose state".
She told him after the event that "When I first tried to contact you, the first thing that surprised me was how deep the rope went. The farther down, the more frightened I became that you were too far away - that I wouldn't be able to reach you because you weren't coming back."
He tells that 'after five full minutes of mentally descending via the telepathic 'rope' she felt a slight shift, like a fishing line deep in the water getting a small but definite tug. "I was sure it was you,' she told me later, 'and I told Holley as much. I told her it wasn't your time yet and that your body would know what to do. I suggested Holley keep those two thoughts in mind, and repeat them to you at your bedside.


I KNOW that this is not proof of anything, I know this. And yet, I also understand the notions, the different vibrationary frequency of 'states' in another, and myself in a comatose state and many other states of awareness, and sometimes the 'distance' in terms of those vibrationary rates the further they are from earthly resonance, be that higher or lower in frequency.

I find it fascinating that he seemed to go both lower and higher in his experience, but not in the near middle if that makes sense, as in he had no experience of what was happening around his actual physical body, and on his investigating other accounts he notices this as unusual too, but also 'perfect' in that it means he has to rely only on neurological data and collaborated opinion for that part of it. Somehow it rubs up against that sometimes one who 'dies' goes straight into the higher energy, othertimes they hang around a bit in 'near' energy and sometimes they 'pop' back to the 'near' frequency,
and the ones that speak of the lower resonances of 'hell' experiences. And he's not the first coma patient to have clear lucidity of experience and total recall of it.

Ah, abundance of evidence is everywhere we 'look' :D what it is we are looking at or with ... I have no idea!! :wink:
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Beyond the Physical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest