Mod+ I Think I've Found An Answer.

#1
As I've recently reported elsewhere on the forum, I am convinced apart from the tiny percentage that will always remain to allow me to remain open. I am putting my money on the Out of Body people like Tom Campbell being right. It wasn't actually Tom that finally did the trick, but a man called Jurgen Ziewe.

Jurgen is a artist by trade but has been meditating and doing out of body for four decades plus, he has thoroughly documented all this in a similar way to Andy Paquart's dreams. He is a serious minded genuine man that admits that he has barely scratched the surface, his books report meeting his dead Mother in the afterlife, and his reincarnated Father too. Interestingly, he says that although his Father has reincarnated in the East of Russia, he is still accessible to him in the Astral realm at the same time.

Is anyone else coming along ? :)
 
#3
Interestingly, he says that although his Father has reincarnated in the East of Russia, he is still accessible to him in the Astral realm at the same time.
If you are interested in how something like that may be possible, you might like SETH SPEAKS and some of the other SETH books. He talks extensively about the constructs of space and time and its relation to reincarnation. It is channelled material from the early 70's. But the metaphysical model dovetails nicely with just about any phenomena you may wish to explore.
 
#5
If you are interested in how something like that may be possible, you might like SETH SPEAKS and some of the other SETH books. He talks extensively about the constructs of space and time and its relation to reincarnation. It is channelled material from the early 70's. But the metaphysical model dovetails nicely with just about any phenomena you may wish to explore.
I have just started exploring Seth's "The Eternal Validity of the Soul". There is certainly some interesting stuff in there which resonates with for example some of Andy Paquart's experiences and many of the ideas that we knock about here. He seems to be discussing an Idealist nature of reality (I am only about 15% of the way through the book at this point).

It does seem strange to read an explanation of reality that was transmitted to a woman in a trance from an energy being!

David
 
#6
Thanks, Steve and Ian. I've now watched the videos Ian linked to, and they were fascinating. I've had a few very intense lucid dreams, and have also noticed that I often dream (non-lucidly) about my home in a (consistently, across dreams) slightly different layout and "feel" to my actual home, in a town with slightly different layout and "feel" to my actual town, which matches what Jurgen says about the next dimension up being a slight variation on our actual physical dimension. I've not had any OBEs, but I did once feel that I was about to leave my body whilst lying on a lounge room floor listening to Portishead's Humming (if you haven't heard it yet, check it out, the vibrational energy in that song is intense - if any song is going to "vibrate you out of your body", it's going to be that one). So, there's nothing that to me seems prima facie implausible about Jurgen Ziewe's experiences as an (admittedly vast!) extrapolation from my own.

I'm curious to know, though, from those of you who've read Jurgen's book, especially Steve, what his overall metaphysic is, to the extent that he reveals it and to the extent that you feel confident/comfortable paraphrasing/interpreting it to me. I read a fair part of Tom Campbell's My Big TOE before my stamina gave out (that man sure uses a lot of words to get his ideas across!), so if it's anything like that, then I have a rough idea, but anyhow, here are a few questions that I'm especially curious about:

  1. Does Jurgen believe in a literal, discrete, conscious God? If so, does he believe that that God is perfectly good? If not, does he believe in a God at all, and if so, what does he believe God's nature is (if not perfectly good)? In particular, does he believe - as Tom Campbell, from my limited reading, seems to believe - that God is evolving or has evolved?
  2. Especially if Jurgen believes in a good God, then does he have a theodicy aka a defence of God's nature in the face of the problem of evil?
  3. What, if anything, does Jurgen have to say in general about the existence and nature of evil, and in particular about the (potential) existence of a literal, discrete, conscious counterpart to God?
  4. What, if any, reason does Jurgen give for the existence of any reality at all in the first place?
  5. What, if any, reason does Jurgen give for the creation/existence of individual consciousnesses such as our own? I think a partial answer to this one from watching the videos is that our individual consciousnesses are part of greater reality's exploration of experience, and that somehow our experiences are integrated into it and help it in some way, but... this leaves a lot of things unanswered for me, especially in relation to the above questions: why, given the existence of realms of powerful love, and thus greater reality's (God's?) ability to distinguish between positive and negative, and to manifest extreme positive, would greater reality/God subject any of us to anything else i.e. to evil and suffering?

I hope this isn't too much to ask. No worries if you don't have the patience/inclination to respond, but I welcome anything you do have to say!
 
#7
And thanks, David, for sharing the Seth reference. I've heard of that source before but haven't yet looked into it. Would be interested to know if/how that source answers the same questions above if I'm not imposing too much in asking.
 
#8
And thanks, David, for sharing the Seth reference. I've heard of that source before but haven't yet looked into it. Would be interested to know if/how that source answers the same questions above if I'm not imposing too much in asking.
Actually, it was Far.From.Here who quoted that reference.

The book is very dense so I am only a small distance through it.

His metaphysics seems to be that our whole environment is generated by our consciousness, and is basically a sort of camouflage - he makes an analogy with a play with lots of props and players playing their various parts.

He also claims that human consciousness is 'multidimensional' with different parts involved in different incarnations, some of which are embedded totally different kinds of 'reality'.

So far there seems to be no moral message. The book is certainly refreshing in that it is written in normal language, as opposed to most Buddhist books.

I know he has a chapter further on about the relationship between all this and the various religions.

David
 
#10
P.S. I would be fascinated in your summary of the chapter on the relationship between this and the various religions if/when you read it.
 
#11
Thanks, Steve and Ian. I've now watched the videos Ian linked to, and they were fascinating. I've had a few very intense lucid dreams, and have also noticed that I often dream (non-lucidly) about my home in a (consistently, across dreams) slightly different layout and "feel" to my actual home, in a town with slightly different layout and "feel" to my actual town, which matches what Jurgen says about the next dimension up being a slight variation on our actual physical dimension. I've not had any OBEs, but I did once feel that I was about to leave my body whilst lying on a lounge room floor listening to Portishead's Humming (if you haven't heard it yet, check it out, the vibrational energy in that song is intense - if any song is going to "vibrate you out of your body", it's going to be that one). So, there's nothing that to me seems prima facie implausible about Jurgen Ziewe's experiences as an (admittedly vast!) extrapolation from my own.

I'm curious to know, though, from those of you who've read Jurgen's book, especially Steve, what his overall metaphysic is, to the extent that he reveals it and to the extent that you feel confident/comfortable paraphrasing/interpreting it to me. I read a fair part of Tom Campbell's My Big TOE before my stamina gave out (that man sure uses a lot of words to get his ideas across!), so if it's anything like that, then I have a rough idea, but anyhow, here are a few questions that I'm especially curious about:

  1. Does Jurgen believe in a literal, discrete, conscious God? If so, does he believe that that God is perfectly good? If not, does he believe in a God at all, and if so, what does he believe God's nature is (if not perfectly good)? In particular, does he believe - as Tom Campbell, from my limited reading, seems to believe - that God is evolving or has evolved?
  2. Especially if Jurgen believes in a good God, then does he have a theodicy aka a defence of God's nature in the face of the problem of evil?
  3. What, if anything, does Jurgen have to say in general about the existence and nature of evil, and in particular about the (potential) existence of a literal, discrete, conscious counterpart to God?
  4. What, if any, reason does Jurgen give for the existence of any reality at all in the first place?
  5. What, if any, reason does Jurgen give for the creation/existence of individual consciousnesses such as our own? I think a partial answer to this one from watching the videos is that our individual consciousnesses are part of greater reality's exploration of experience, and that somehow our experiences are integrated into it and help it in some way, but... this leaves a lot of things unanswered for me, especially in relation to the above questions: why, given the existence of realms of powerful love, and thus greater reality's (God's?) ability to distinguish between positive and negative, and to manifest extreme positive, would greater reality/God subject any of us to anything else i.e. to evil and suffering?

I hope this isn't too much to ask. No worries if you don't have the patience/inclination to respond, but I welcome anything you do have to say!
Hi Laird

Wow, there are some tricky questions there !

I really don't think that Jurgen attempts to answer questions like the ones you have posed. He may have his own ideas about God but I think he will keep those to himself. I mentioned God in a post to him and he said something about God being much misunderstood.

I see him as a really great reporter, of course everything is subjective but he reports only what he experiences. I don't think he wanders into either Bernardo Kastrup or Tom Campbell type theories or ideas.

Unlike Tom he thinks that he should report his personal experiences, I agree with him for what that's worth. I have read and watched a lot of Tom Cambell's 'work', but can't get close to it, or him. I find that very frustrating because I really think that he knows a lot of stuff. I have said before that I wrote to him saying that I didn't find his teaching very spiritual and he replied saying ' In that case you can't have seen much of it.' ! Which is untrue, but I left it at that. I found him to be too much head and not enough heart, I don't know how to put it much better than that.

I think he would be much easier to 'like' in person. Maybe I'm wrong ? As you have said, he does go on a bit ! Have you visited his forum ? I still visit but rarely post any more, I can't understand half of it. As an aviation professional before I had a stroke I thought that we loved acronyms but I think Tom and his 'gang' like them more ! :eek:

Getting back to Jurgen. I prefer his approach and personally I am not too interested in finding out the details - that will come in good time. I'm very satisfied just absorbing the 'big stuff' and at the same time I'm trying to be more present, noticing the little stuff. Many of the spiritual teachers and that I do somehow gel with, including Jurgen, point to this as being important.

As for his books, I've read his two previous books, Multidimensional Man and The Ten Minute Moment. The latter seems to me to basically be an outpouring of only one of his personal experiences. As usual, words are often a very limiting way of expressing NDE's for example. The Ten Minute Moment is very much subject to this communication limit that we have to put up with. I'm waiting for his new book to be delivered, as I couldn't wait for it to come out on Kindle, which it will, I'm sure, in the next two months or so.

Jurgen's website is www.multidimensionalman.com and is well worth a visit, even though it is not frequently updated. If you are on Facebook he quite often posts there and seems amenable to accepting friend requests (as does Tom C). Maybe you should ask him directly?

Steve
 
#12
I'm breaking my cover as a lurker in order to post this response as there are a couple of things I'd like to share.

First, Jurgen. As you say, he put a lot of work into his website but it doesn't seem to get too many updates (navigation can be tricky so I might have missed the recent stuff). One thing that impressed me is that he seems to be able to achieve OOB at will. Of particular interest was the description of an experiment he did with his brother in order to provide veridical evidence. I think this may have some bearing on the AWARE results - at least the lack of target hits. This page from his web site explains what I mean in more detail:

http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Mechanics_of_Out-of-body_travel.html

Secondly, Seth. I read my first Seth book way back in 1981 and it changed my thinking forever. Or should I say it crystallised my thinking because I was already some way down that path and reading the material felt like finding my true home. Nevertheless, caution is advised in the material itself: don't just believe what's written here, look inside yourself for your own answers. So there are some things in the Seth material I think are fuzzy or garbled - perhaps just plain wrong. Some of the Christ material (David, sounds like you are getting to that but it crops up in more than one book) needs careful examination. Some of the predictions too - although, again, there is caution that we chose from multiple probabilities (MWI in QM?). Lastly, there is the Seth personality himself. It seems that Jane never really shook the feeling that she was creating the Seth personality as a secondary personality in order to deliver the material she was receiving. I'm inclined to agree. I think the material is out there but she had a particularly acute talent for accessing and interpreting the raw data. I believe that this requires a combination of skills which include, but are not limited to, trance mediumship, a creative imagination and a good vocabulary. Jane had all in spades: she was a published novelist before Seth arrived on the scene. Also, the role of her husband, Rob Butts, is not to be underestimated. He transcribed everything verbatim and added voluminous notes and references.

Hope this helps your discussion. I'll get back in my hole now ;)
 
#13
Kamarling,

It is good to see you back - I think it would be a shame if you disappear into your hole so soon - you have just illustrated that you have a lot to contribute.

Remarkably, I have just noticed that this discussion is not MOD+ - I wonder if that can be changed.

I got a bit unhappy when I got to Seth's discussion about how the mind influences matter (and even creates it). It did seem to get a bit confused, and didn't really relate to anything scientific at all. He talked about "electromagnetic units", by which I thought he was actually referring to volts, amps, etc. Then I decided that maybe he was referring to photons. On the other hand there were suggestions that he wrote something else for scientifically minded people - does anyone know about that?

There is also the question about what is meant by 'energy'. I keep feeling it does not mean what physics means by that term, but I wish this was made clear.

I start to feel the quality of his material is variable.

David
 
#15
I think we know what the skeptics would make of Seth already. The more you read, the more you realise that much of that material has been rehashed and re-issued in other guises. For example, the so-called Law of Attraction and the Book/Video, "The Secret" (I'm not a fan of that, by the way). Even down to more mainstream subjects like NLP and Sports Psychology (visualise the outcome: make it happen). Again, I'm also skeptical about the source and some of the detail but I can make allowances for "lost in translation", etc. I'm also aware that the material is hardly new in its entirety because it slots-in somewhat to what is often termed the "Perennial Philosophy" which seems to be very ancient indeed.

As for the science, I'm not qualified to comment but I did read another book by a scientist who tackles those issues. Here it is if you are interested:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00YYAZ4HQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

And here's some commentary which makes reference to Friedman's book:

http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaelco...es_the_world_seth_stephen_and_the_physicists/

What I have to bear in mind, and what Jurgen seems to confirm, is that Psi is not accessible to an empirical approach. It is far more subjective which makes measurement and repeatability unreliable at the very least. Perhaps, though, our present reality is also subjective yet constrained by a set rules (physical laws) which make it seem very orderly, precise and objective. Yet perhaps also there are enough clues around, many of which are discussed here, to suggest that the physical is just a box in which we find ourselves. NDE and OOB experiences might be ways of peeking outside the box.
 
#17
#18
Hi Laird

Wow, there are some tricky questions there !

I really don't think that Jurgen attempts to answer questions like the ones you have posed. He may have his own ideas about God but I think he will keep those to himself. I mentioned God in a post to him and he said something about God being much misunderstood.

I see him as a really great reporter, of course everything is subjective but he reports only what he experiences. I don't think he wanders into either Bernardo Kastrup or Tom Campbell type theories or ideas.

Unlike Tom he thinks that he should report his personal experiences, I agree with him for what that's worth. I have read and watched a lot of Tom Cambell's 'work', but can't get close to it, or him. I find that very frustrating because I really think that he knows a lot of stuff. I have said before that I wrote to him saying that I didn't find his teaching very spiritual and he replied saying ' In that case you can't have seen much of it.' ! Which is untrue, but I left it at that. I found him to be too much head and not enough heart, I don't know how to put it much better than that.

I think he would be much easier to 'like' in person. Maybe I'm wrong ? As you have said, he does go on a bit ! Have you visited his forum ? I still visit but rarely post any more, I can't understand half of it. As an aviation professional before I had a stroke I thought that we loved acronyms but I think Tom and his 'gang' like them more ! :eek:

Getting back to Jurgen. I prefer his approach and personally I am not too interested in finding out the details - that will come in good time. I'm very satisfied just absorbing the 'big stuff' and at the same time I'm trying to be more present, noticing the little stuff. Many of the spiritual teachers and that I do somehow gel with, including Jurgen, point to this as being important.

As for his books, I've read his two previous books, Multidimensional Man and The Ten Minute Moment. The latter seems to me to basically be an outpouring of only one of his personal experiences. As usual, words are often a very limiting way of expressing NDE's for example. The Ten Minute Moment is very much subject to this communication limit that we have to put up with. I'm waiting for his new book to be delivered, as I couldn't wait for it to come out on Kindle, which it will, I'm sure, in the next two months or so.

Jurgen's website is www.multidimensionalman.com and is well worth a visit, even though it is not frequently updated. If you are on Facebook he quite often posts there and seems amenable to accepting friend requests (as does Tom C). Maybe you should ask him directly?

Steve
Hi Steve,

Thanks for your great response.

I was thoroughly gripped and fascinated by the early part of My Big TOE, in which Tom described the remarkable autobiographical details of his life, and so I definitely agree with you about the value and importance of reports of personal experience. As you say, the rest of it became very "heady", which I don't mind at all, so long as the basis of the claims is made clear (I'm speaking in general about "heady" stuff, not just Tom's book). Is it speculation? Informed guessing? Imagination? Tentative modelling based on the evidence? Channelling from a source, and if so, is that source known to be authoritative/trustworthy or not, and if so, how do we know? Or is it even in some sense "provable", and if so, what is the proof? I think it's very important that this is made clear up front. Tom's up-front claim seemed to be that by the end it would all be "proved" or at least in some sense justified or demonstrated to be reliable, and because I didn't finish the book, I can't really evaluate that claim - except to say that there was nothing I could call proof by the point I left off - but sadly, the verbosity eventually killed my attempt to find out.

Nope, I haven't visited his forum. I thought it best not to having not finished the book; it's in my view - depending on circumstances - probably a bit disrespectful to potentially waste a group's time by asking questions which you might have been able to answer by reading material which that group has already made available, and if I had joined I have no doubt I would have been asking a lot of questions! I suppose though that it wouldn't have hurt to have had a browse around. Yes, I noticed that Tom loves his acronyms!

I'm working on the assumption - which seems pretty reasonable to me - that there is an objective explanation for "life, the universe and everything" within which everything I have experienced can in turn be coherently explained (including what I've read and been told, even if the explanation is "what I was told was a lie"). And I'd very much like to know what that explanation is. One problem is that the more you read, the more you need to coherently explain, and there's so much conflicting stuff out there... you start to wonder whether reading is all that good a means of discovering truth, and in fact in one of those videoes, Jurgen said something much the same - that he concluded that it wasn't, and that inner experience was the way to go.

Thanks for the link to Jurgen's website, and the suggestion that I ask him my questions directly. Again, I'm kind of reluctant given that I haven't read his books, but perhaps since you say my questions aren't answered in his books anyway it might be OK.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#19
I'm quite willing to change to MOD+ David, it but don't know how to do so.
Steve, use the "Thread Tools" option you should see at the upper right, being the starter of the thread, alongside "Unwatch thread". You'll find an "edit title" option and you can change the title of the thread and select either "no prefix" or "MOD+". By the way, even if the thread is not MOD+, this subforum is supposed to be Skeptic-free.
 
#20
By the way, even if the thread is not MOD+, this subforum is supposed to be Skeptic-free.
That's what I thought too - otherwise I probably would not have risked posting here. If there's one thing that Dillinger is achieving with his series of questions, it is demonstrating how little things have changed and how repetitious the skeptical arguments tend to be. One might say the same about the proponent argument but the shows and the posters are constantly providing new food for thought while the skeptics seem to have little more than what they started with, years ago. That might be a biased view on my part and, incidentally, this is distracting from the OP so 'nuff said. :)

(See how easy it is to get drawn-in again, David?)
 
Top