Marisa Ryan, Certified Psychic Medium Tackles Big Picture Questions |398|

Time moving at a faster rate though does not seem to help. Perhaps them operating at a faster rate through time would make sense, but certainly not time itself moving faster.
Correct, but it should be realised but just because Marisa has verified contact with people on the other side, doesn't mean she can necessarily talk knowledgeably about the 'physics' of the situation. "Time going faster" may be her way of describing what must be a very puzzling reality.

I favour multiple time axes for one simple reason. Almost every action that you can imagine anyone doing up there - deciding, hoping, changing - needs a before and after state in order to make sense.

David
 
Last edited:
Abrahamism no longer is sufficient as a blinding doctrine - so monist nihilism is being enforced as the replacement for Abrahamism in this role.
Interesting notion. 'Abrahamism' has progressively degraded the notion of the supernatural into magical thinking (in which actual spirit has been replaced cartoonised fictions). 'Monist nihilism' induces the magical thinking of humanism (in which the human intellect is then highest form of consciousness). In certain respects, American fundamentalist Christianity fuses the two to create a kind of 'Abrahamic nihilism'.

I have not encountered Social Skepticism before, and it seems to have some powerful ideas:

"Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied." - I can't imagine the volume of the howls of protest from those who foster the hideous lunacy of inducing opinions from the fatuous and ignorant, and from such folk who now think expressing an opinion is an entitlement to be taken seriously. It is a deliciously cheeky sentiment - silence instead of popular braying of inanities.

"These final conclusive claims of fake skeptics are conducted in lieu of science, mostly adopted in absence of any evidence whatsoever,....This constitutes malice and a corruption of science in the public trust." - The idea of malice is little explored as a motive of the fake skeptic. The imposition of an untrue claim or proposition which benefits the claimant (ego gratification, status or monetary reward) as the primary objective must lead us to imagine that there is malice. There may be other ways of understanding, of course, but malice cannot be discarded out of hand.

"They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions." - This habit commenced under the exponents of Christian dogma, once it was understood that power and truth are not good bedfellows if the intent is not noble. It has been taken up by 'rationalists' who likewise understand that power and truth are poor companions to the mildly mad who are entranced by their own delusions and conceits.

I presume the intent of the Ethical Skeptic is to be a friend to truth (even when it cannot be known), and resist the temptation to tweak it to serve personal benefit.
 
Thanks for this awesome wonderfully nuanced post

She also said that categorically, we cannot live simultaneous lives, because we can only live one life fully at any one time. Now I also do not believe that we live more than one life at a time, but I cannot rule it out. In this assertion of hers, I was challenged not by the fact that she didn't believe it was possible, but more the fact that I was not convinced by her reasoning.
I get your point. I can't imagine what it's like to talk to dead Spirits all the time And then be asked to judge the veracity of their answers about the big picture questions. One thing seems certain - There's a lot of contrary conclusions from Spirit/s.


I also struggled to find any moral imperatives that might be gleaned from the information Marisa provided. The moral question has seemed to me for so long an absolutely pivotal one. Not in any religious fundamentalist fashion, but as a guiding principle. The moral dimension seems to be present in all of the central themes of our lives, not just as a social construct, but as a deeply intuited and felt experience. Empathy, compassion, anger, aggression etc. These colour so much of our lives, and indeed seem often to form the both the foundations and reasons for our lives.
agreed. I don't totally understand the waffling. the existence of a moral imperative seems like a pretty clear-cut conclusion from the data.

I loved Marisa, and value tremendously all of the information she most graciously shared. I am not at all questioning the veracity of any of what she shared, only the potential implications. After all, shes a medium, not necessarily a philosopher.
agreed :)
 
I presume the intent of the Ethical Skeptic is to be a friend to truth (even when it cannot be known), and resist the temptation to tweak it to serve personal benefit.
Good schema Michael - and this relates to your insightful post (per hoc aditum construct) in another thread about our natural ego and desire to be stroked, rendering us vulnerable to other-worldly entities who might seek to exploit this vulnerability, through mediums...

Well, in a sense that 'the friend of my friend, is my friend', ethical skepticism is a friend of truth, no matter how ugly or unknown - yes. Ethical skepticism is a learned discipline which supports and defends science in its quest to be companion of truth. As a skeptic however, I cannot claim any direct relationship with truth (other than of course necessary philosophical ones - because skepticism is philosophy). Heaven forbid tweak it - especially by means of the question first asked or through cleverly identifying not-truths. All I can do is intervene when I observe science being manipulated by pseudo-philosophies (agencies of gain, hate or power accrual - all applying fake or social skepticism). Social skepticism is nothing but organized fake skepticism.

Fake skepticism is not a discipline, rather an adorned virtue - a critical (cynical) mode of thought making one, therefore, the most likely possessor of truth in the room. In this context, science is your friend, and a badge one wears as a Deputy Sheriff of Doubt - and is mostly there to support one's perceived value, rationality and authority. It is a method of earning scientific chops without investing much effort or ability at all. One's quiver is filled with YMCA karate style one-liners, memorized for each possible not-truth (768 of them) one may encounter in public and media. As a result of managing the not-truths (pseudosciences), one is now quod erat demonstrandum, curator of truth. A nice trick. Thereafter holding science accountable in order to see that this truth (Omega Hypothesis) is ever served.

TES
 
Last edited:
I also struggled to find any moral imperatives that might be gleaned from the information Marisa provided.
I sort of feel the truth may be more complex than people tend to think. I mean, if we are being placed in situations that are intentionally difficult, it might be that the people who play the bad roles are kind of needed as props. Think of people acting in a play (All the World's a stage.....), I do wonder if life is not 100% different from that, with a bit more leeway for actors to interpret their role. One reason for thinking that way is that people devote so much effort into plays, and novels. Right back in the school playground, we played cowboys and Indians, or police chasing criminals.

We needed some kids to play the baddies!

David
 
Fantastic points Richard. Can you Please share a link to that interview here in this thread when it's out.

By the way, for those who don't know, Richard has had some especially amazing interviews on his podcast lately.

Hope Marisa spots this post... would love to get her take.
Okay, here is the interview with Jerry Marzinsky I mentioned, I'm going to publish it later in the week but will make it available here now.

To reiterate, Jerry worked as a psychotherapist in hospitals and the US prison system, principally with schizophrenics. He came to believe 'the voices' were (for the most part) parasitic entities generating then feeding of negative human emotion. He also talks about how they can use deception, pretending to be spirit guides or ascended masters, whatever a person was seeking.

Jerry has offered to come back on to answer follow up questions, so I'd be pleased to hear anyone's thoughts.


https://deepstateconsciousness.podbean.com/?p=10780279&token=05f9cbae522b6e0714264282ead0af97
 
@The Ethical Skeptic

I'm curious, as a learned man, if you've any opinions on the validity of the ideas of life after death, psychic phenomenon and so forth.
Two disciplines of skepticism which I apply to this topic you mention LetsEat, are Ockham's Razor and The Elements of Hypothesis.

1. Sufficient induction (probative amplanecdote - over 1 million anecdotes, and research data which provide for consilience, but not final proof) has been accomplished to suggest that the Alternative that there is an Afterlife, must be considered as part of the plurality of science. In other words, the idea has surpassed Ockham's Razor, much to the disdain of philosophical nihilists (masquerading as atheists, as an atheist can freely consider NDE's - but a nihilist cannot).

2. Once an idea has surpassed Ockham's Razor as a possibility, it must be matured into actual scientific hypothesis. This requires a certain amount of diligent work, crafting of a critical path (from prior art) of incremental conjecture, development of intelligence and finally a mechanism which can be tested for both explanatory and predictive power. The problem is that we have a group of fake skeptics fighting tooth and nail to make sure that this process (science) never happens. They are the Deputy Sheriffs of Doubt. Fake skeptics and self-identified 'science enthusiasts'. And their work in blocking - attacking anyone who would develop this construct into a real hypothesis, is both malicious and pseudo-scientific.

I do hold open the proposition (not yet a hypothesis either) that all our NDE observations can be explained by the natural neurological processes of death. But am really concerned as to how evolution would develop 'natural neurological processes of death' - given that any predecessor life form or especially human predecessor who indeed had died, would not reproduce and hand their death-process advantage genes to the next generation, and myriad generations of culling and mutation would be required for such a sophisticated body/cerebral function to evolve in the first place - even if an accidental vestigial effect, it is still magic. If it is a process of 'making death easier', then those species who bore such disadvantage, would have died out compared to those who fought to the very last firing of an objecting neuron. But set that aside, I do consider the idea in the set of Ockham's Razor plausible constructs.

Both Alternatives involve some key magical assumptions which bypass Darwin. That does bother me, but that is what we have. The second problem is that certain forces would slam this construct of the neurological processes of dying, in as truth before the idea is even mature as a hypothesis, much less as the result of any kind of research. What they have done is to create a very familiar fake scientific play wherein we have two alternatives:

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea declared correct at first mention, or of such importance or virtue, that its adoption as truth now stands more important than science itself? Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it - those who dared to research any alternative? Was the idea installed as truth before any substantial research was even conducted?​
Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’? Is there enormous social pressure to not even ask questions inside the subject? Is mocking and derision high – curiously in excess of what the subject should merit? Is the subject patrolled by hordes of self-identifying 'doubters'.​
My hackles are raised when I see an Embargo Hypothesis being targeted by social skepticism. Such as is the case with NDE's. That means that someone somewhere is afraid of the idea. I do not hold any answer beyond those two points of ethical skepticism. Other than of course my own personal stories.

TES
 
Last edited:
I found Jerry Marzinskis video very interesting, I recommend a chapter called Hallucinations in Wilson van Dusens book The Natural Depth in Man. Wilson was a psychologist working in a hospital in California who persuaded his patients to let him talk to their hallucinations directly. I don’t know if the book is still in print, I lost my copy but was able to buy it very cheaply on Kindle.

Last year Durham university had an exhibition on voices called Suffering, Inspiration and the Everyday. It was also online http//hearingvoicesdu.org there should be a double dot after the http but I don’t seem to have it on my iPad keyboard.
 
Both Alternatives involve some key magical assumptions which bypass Darwin. That does bother me, but that is what we have. The second problem is that certain forces would slam this construct of the neurological processes of dying, in as truth before the idea is even mature as a hypothesis, much less as the result of any kind of research. What they have done is to create a very familiar fake scientific play wherein we have two alternatives:

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea declared correct at first mention, or of such importance or virtue, that its adoption as truth now stands more important than science itself? Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it - those who dared to research any alternative? Was the idea installed as truth before any substantial research was even conducted?​
I'd say that Darwinism is a striking example of in the sense that it's regarded of "such importance or virtue that its adoption as truth now stands more important than science itself". It wasn't declared correct at first mention except perhaps by those who saw the only alternative as necessarily involving the supernatural, or a universe governed by the directing agent that Abrahamists think of as God, and didn't like that idea one bit.

At the time of its inception, Darwinism seemed plausible enough, but cells were then thought of as little more than blobs of protoplasm and people didn't have much of a clue of just how complex they really appear to be. Truth to tell, Darwinism has always had its fair share of doubters and has never really succeeded in killing off all opposition despite the embargo it has attempted to impose. Indeed, the doubters are just as, if not even more, vociferous now, and can wield against Darwinism a number of empirical observations.

Where is the predicted gradualism in the fossil record? Why for a multitude of species do we not find numerous gradations in evolutionary development? Why do we instead find what appear to be evolutionary "explosions" such as occurred in the Cambrian period -- and also in periods during which other similar events occurred: the mammalian, avian and angiosperm explosions to name three off the top of my head? Why do major groups of organisms based on specific body plans seem to have appeared comparatively rapidly and more or less fully formed without having left a trail of their evolutionary development in the fossil record?

Then again, Darwinism encounters huge difficulties with explaining how evolution occurs at the molecular level. The proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled with natural selection seems to me to be absurd given the huge improbability of such a thing having led to thousands of precisely targeted proteins in each of millions of species (8,700,000 according to some estimates). Each one of those proteins can be hundreds or thousands of amino acid units long, each in turn requiring a very specific triplet of nucleotides in a specific place in a sequence. How could such amazing specificity have evolved by a combination of chance and natural selection? Calculations show that we would have required gazillions of years rather than a few billion.

Bottom line, I don't think Darwinism can be correct except perhaps on the micro scale. That doesn't mean I know the true mechanism of evolution. Some think Intelligent Design is a better explanation, but I'm not entirely happy with the "Design" bit (shades of Abrahamism), feeling more comfortable merely with the idea that there's intelligence, or maybe better, consciousness in some form or other involved in the system.

That said, the ID people are doing a sterling job of criticising Darwinism. I read Evolution News regularly just because it's one of the few places where counter evidence is supplied and there's sweet Fanny Adams Darwinists can do about that even if they wanted to. The "skeptical" ploy is to attempt to lump in ID with creationism and ridicule it based on that. However, not all ID supporters and sympathisers are religionists; some are agnostic and a few even atheist.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but one thing I'd like to ask you is why it bothers you that Darwin is being bypassed by "magical" assumptions and why you choose that particular epithet. After all, at first glance, there are two broad possibilities. Either life is an accident or it's not. If it is, to my mind nothing means anything worth a tinker's toss. If it isn't, then somewhere, somehow, it's a plausible hypothesis that consciousness has a role in the system; not necessarily a designing intelligence with a definite plan, but maybe a consciousness that is, put in ordinary terms, "striving towards an aim". In which latter case, there would seem to be meaning to life, and if so, that would hardly be magic but just a brute fact, as would be the alternative, mere accident.

I freely admit that I have an inbuilt leaning towards there being meaning in existence; I would be truly gobsmacked if it were all accidental. I hope I'm still capable of having epoché, however, defined here as:

Greek (so the accute accent should be a flat line) pronounced epokay with a short 'e'. Epoche means literally 'abstention' and was used by the Stoics for the suspension of belief. Husserl uses the term to designate a setting aside of our usual unexamined assumptions about things, for example, that objects exist. Epoche is performed by the phenomenologist so that what remains in consciousness is the phenomenon itself and not preconceived notions and assumptions that stem from our natural attitude. Epoche is performed by bracketing (setting aside as not under examination at present) anything about the phenomenon other than as it is in consciousness. Epoche and bracketing are synonymous although they are often refered to in secondary material as if there is one radical epoche and several subsiduary brackets. Thus epoche becomes the performing of all possible bracketing, e.g. the existance of a thing, its historical connotations, its place in a causal framework etc. whereas bracketing is often specific to a particular assumption.
Beware: assuming that epoche is something easily performed
That last caution about epoché is well taken: it's not easy to retain it, particularly where we have strong leanings to something, however much (or little) empirical evidence there might be. But what the heck: no one knows what gravity and the other three "fundamental forces" or atomic/subatomic particles are, whether there really was a big bang, and so on.

All our hypotheses seem to rest on the idea of causation through interaction, but what intrigues me about, and attracts me to, Idealism, is that such could be an illusion. Everything we perceive either directly, or indirectly through instrumentation -- including life forms like us -- might be just the appearance to our senses of processes going on in the consciousness of some fundamental unitary primitive, which we model with varying degrees of success using the idea of interactive causation. Happily enough for us, such modelling enables the degree of explanatory/predictive/utilitarian engagement with the world that we think of as science and its practical arm, technology, but not so much that we can, and still less should, make any claims to final knowledge.

The supporters of the predominant paradigm at any given moment tend to suggest, rather arrogantly, that they're within a hairsbreadth of the ultimate truth, but plainly, this has never been the case. We're constantly epicycling, only occasionally dropping some of the old epicycles. The present and predominant sacerdotal elites in the West, the scientists, are quite often cursed by enormous hubris, or at least represented by those with enormous hubris. The air of certainty these representatives project, all the while claiming to be humble denizens of exploration, is often quite sickening, but there are few in positions of authority with enough guts to call them out.

Unfortunately, to some extent their counterparts sometimes also make unwarranted claims, expressing virtual certainty about the existence of various not-obviously-interconnected paranormal phenomena, sometimes employing the scientific method. Well, conclusions that are open to criticism in conventional science may sometimes be equally open to question in unconventional science. Both can to some degree be erroneous in their interpretations. All that can really be said is that it seems there may be something to stances taken in either domain, but I try, in the spirit of epoché, not to attach myself too strongly to either view. I always try to walk the tightrope of true scepticism. Not that I can claim never to teeter; I somehow doubt that even the most ethical of sceptics can or would claim that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Michael - I think that was the subtle point there. If every alternative you have in your consideration involves a key magical assumption in order to be successfully explanatory, then a foundational understanding is flawed. Either its prior art or predicate structure contains a flawed magical assumption. So in this case, 'Darwin' is used as a null against which to elicit this duality of magic. To show that, the reason why this is a mystery is the dogged assumptions we refuse to let go of.

1. In an epistemology there is no magic, only apparent magic through flawed assumptions.​
2. Under a context of epoché there is not 'tolerable/probable magic' and 'intolerable/improbable magic'. All magic is of equal disqualifying power. This is contained under a hypothesis' 'Duty to reduce, address and inform'. A hypothesis cannot leverage its explanatory power off a key assumption which is critically magical.​
3. epoché itself is not a method of inference of course.​

I suppose the only 'magic' tolerable in a hypothesis, is the very incremental conjecture of the hypothesis itself - that which is being tested for validity in the first place. I think this may be your very point Michael - I'm not sure. An Omega Hypothesis contains magic as a hidden assumption. A valid hypothesis, tests its magic as part of its conjecture of accountability.

This is why I support Alex's show:

Alex's hypothesis, even though it is not yet mature (and that is not his fault), offers up its magical assumption as what is to be actually tested. He is not forcing a conclusion.
Nihilistic Materialism on the other hand, cleverly hides its magical assumption, will not allow it to be tested - and forces a conclusion.
Understanding this - is critical inside any claim to be scientifically literate.
 
Last edited:
David, Would you expand on that, not sure what you mean. This brain has never existed outside of time or space so the language and conceptual structure may be confounding.
Remember we are talking about the mind/consciousness not the physical brain.

If you examine NDE reports, you often encounter the idea that the realm 'out there' is timeless. This concept also pops up in a few other places. This means for example, that people report that they can observe the whole timeline of their lives, including the part that still lies in the future!

I puzzled over this for a long time, because existing in a timeless realm is just about unthinkable - you can't take any actions at all because any action involves a before and an after. Indeed, hardly any verb makes any sense in a timeless realm! Even the act of observing the entire time line doesn't make sense - I mean surely when you observe something your mind changes in some way as a result! Indeed, the whole typical scenario, of going through the tunnel , meeting various people, being told you have to go back (or being given the choice), can't really make sense without time.

Thus my guess is that they people out there see an extended chunk of time (T1) - our time - as a static thing, but then then operate in another time T2. This might also explain instances where the NDE lasts much longer subjectively than it does to to outside observers (think of Eban Alexander's NDE).

David
 
I'd say that Darwinism is a striking example of in the sense that it's regarded of "such importance or virtue that its adoption as truth now stands more important than science itself". It wasn't declared correct at first mention except perhaps by those who saw the only alternative as necessarily involving the supernatural, or a universe governed by the directing agent that Abrahamists think of as God, and didn't like that idea one bit.

At the time of its inception, Darwinism seemed plausible enough, but cells were then thought of as little more than blobs of protoplasm and people didn't have much of a clue of just how complex they really appear to be. Truth to tell, Darwinism has always had its fair share of doubters and has never really succeeded in killing off all opposition despite the embargo it has attempted to impose. Indeed, the doubters are just as, if not even more, vociferous now, and can wield against Darwinism a number of empirical observations.

Where is the predicted gradualism in the fossil record? Why for a multitude of species do we not find numerous gradations in evolutionary development? Why do we instead find what appear to be evolutionary "explosions" such as occurred in the Cambrian period -- and also in periods during which other similar events occurred: the mammalian, avian and angiosperm explosions to name three off the top of my head? Why do major groups of organisms based on specific body plans seem to have appeared comparatively rapidly and more or less fully formed without having left a trail of their evolutionary development in the fossil record?

Then again, Darwinism encounters huge difficulties with explaining how evolution occurs at the molecular level. The proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled with natural selection seems to me to be absurd given the huge improbability of such a thing having led to thousands of precisely targeted proteins in each of millions of species (8,700,000 according to some estimates). Each one of those proteins can be hundreds or thousands of amino acid units long, each in turn requiring a very specific triplet of nucleotides in a specific place in a sequence. How could such amazing specificity have evolved by a combination of chance and natural selection? Calculations show that we would have required gazillions of years rather than a few billion.

Bottom line, I don't think Darwinism can be correct except perhaps on the micro scale. That doesn't mean I know the true mechanism of evolution. Some think Intelligent Design is a better explanation, but I'm not entirely happy with the "Design" bit (shades of Abrahamism), feeling more comfortable merely with the idea that there's intelligence, or maybe better, consciousness in some form or other involved in the system.

That said, the ID people are doing a sterling job of criticising Darwinism. I read Evolution News regularly just because it's one of the few places where counter evidence is supplied and there's sweet Fanny Adams Darwinists can do about that even if they wanted to. The "skeptical" ploy is to attempt to lump in ID with creationism and ridicule it based on that. However, not all ID supporters and sympathisers are religionists; some are agnostic and a few even atheist.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but one thing I'd like to ask you is why it bothers you that Darwin is being bypassed by "magical" assumptions and why you choose that particular epithet. After all, at first glance, there are two broad possibilities. Either life is an accident or it's not. If it is, to my mind nothing means anything worth a tinker's toss. If it isn't, then somewhere, somehow, it's a plausible hypothesis that consciousness has a role in the system; not necessarily a designing intelligence with a definite plan, but maybe a consciousness that is, put in ordinary terms, "striving towards an aim". In which latter case, there would seem to be meaning to life, and if so, that would hardly be magic but just a brute fact, as would be the alternative, mere accident.

I freely admit that I have an inbuilt leaning towards there being meaning in existence; I would be truly gobsmacked if it were all accidental. I hope I'm still capable of having epoché, however, defined here as:

Greek (so the accute accent should be a flat line) pronounced epokay with a short 'e'. Epoche means literally 'abstention' and was used by the Stoics for the suspension of belief. Husserl uses the term to designate a setting aside of our usual unexamined assumptions about things, for example, that objects exist. Epoche is performed by the phenomenologist so that what remains in consciousness is the phenomenon itself and not preconceived notions and assumptions that stem from our natural attitude. Epoche is performed by bracketing (setting aside as not under examination at present) anything about the phenomenon other than as it is in consciousness. Epoche and bracketing are synonymous although they are often refered to in secondary material as if there is one radical epoche and several subsiduary brackets. Thus epoche becomes the performing of all possible bracketing, e.g. the existance of a thing, its historical connotations, its place in a causal framework etc. whereas bracketing is often specific to a particular assumption.
Beware: assuming that epoche is something easily performed
That last caution about epoché is well taken: it's not easy to retain it, particularly where we have strong leanings to something, however much (or little) empirical evidence there might be. But what the heck: no one knows what gravity and the other three "fundamental forces" or atomic/subatomic particles are, whether there really was a big bang, and so on.

All our hypotheses seem to rest on the idea of causation through interaction, but what intrigues me about, and attracts me to, Idealism, is that such could be an illusion. Everything we perceive either directly, or indirectly through instrumentation -- including life forms like us -- might be just the appearance to our senses of processes going on in the consciousness of some fundamental unitary primitive, which we model with varying degrees of success using the idea of interactive causation. Happily enough for us, such modelling enables the degree of explanatory/predictive/utilitarian engagement with the world that we think of as science and its practical arm, technology, but not so much that we can, and still less should, make any claims to final knowledge.

The supporters of the predominant paradigm at any given moment tend to suggest, rather arrogantly, that they're within a hairsbreadth of the ultimate truth, but plainly, this has never been the case. We're constantly epicycling, only occasionally dropping some of the old epicycles. The present and predominant sacerdotal elites in the West, the scientists, are quite often cursed by enormous hubris, or at least represented by those with enormous hubris. The air of certainty these representatives project, all the while claiming to be humble denizens of exploration, is often quite sickening, but there are few in positions of authority with enough guts to call them out.

Unfortunately, to some extent their counterparts sometimes also make unwarranted claims, expressing virtual certainty about the existence of various not-obviously-interconnected paranormal phenomena, sometimes employing the scientific method. Well, conclusions that are open to criticism in conventional science may sometimes be equally open to question in unconventional science. Both can to some degree be erroneous in their interpretations. All that can really be said is that it seems there may be something to stances taken in either domain, but I try, in the spirit of epoché, not to attach myself too strongly to either view. I always try to walk the tightrope of true scepticism. Not that I can claim never to teeter; I somehow doubt that even the most ethical of sceptics can or would claim that.
Crikey, I hardly understood a word of that, and why does your post contain some huge gaps?

David
 
Crikey, I hardly understood a word of that, and why does your post contain some huge gaps?

David
Try it now. I think I might have inadvertently messed with one of my browser addons that changes the colour of text and backgrounds. Although I could always see it, you might not have. I hope it's fixed now -- please let me know if it is.
 
Okay, here is the interview with Jerry Marzinsky I mentioned, I'm going to publish it later in the week but will make it available here now.

To reiterate, Jerry worked as a psychotherapist in hospitals and the US prison system, principally with schizophrenics. He came to believe 'the voices' were (for the most part) parasitic entities generating then feeding of negative human emotion. He also talks about how they can use deception, pretending to be spirit guides or ascended masters, whatever a person was seeking.

Jerry has offered to come back on to answer follow up questions, so I'd be pleased to hear anyone's thoughts.


https://deepstateconsciousness.podbean.com/?p=10780279&token=05f9cbae522b6e0714264282ead0af97
Incredibly interesting, Richard. Not sure quite what to make of it, mind. It'd probably be inappropriate to discuss it here lest I derail the thread. Tell me, is the only place to discuss it on YouTube as there doesn't appear to be a forum or comments section on your site? Also, how does one access extra content?
 
Last edited:
Wilson van Dusan talks about two distinct orders of hallucinations, a lower and a higher, he says that the higher order acts out of respect for the patients will and gives several examples. I would like to hear Jerry’s comments on this.

The culture in UK hositals has also been as Jerry describes, staff are forbidden to talk to patients about their voices because they are seen as a symptom of their illness. He is a brave man to carry on in the midst of so much intimidation, I would hope that eventually, as he is joined by others, their work will lead to greater compassion for the patients
 
Top