Finally finished... started at noon yesterday and with a break here and there, got 2/3rds through and went to bed near 11 PM - and then weirdly, after having a lengthy, vivid/lucid dream featuring a monster that I knew was there but would not come out then shifting into an attempt to escape a from what I concluded in the dream was aliens to a scene where I was with a group of people where one of them put me on his shoulders while he walked towards a group of "phenomenon manifestations" where I perceived that they perceived I had some sort of special ability to communicate with them; note in this last scene, I concluded the individual manifestations were "not each the same type of other worldly being" and each were some form of light manifestation, plasma thing, neon construction, all with form and movement... and this happened at 2:55 AM whereby I tried to sleep but couldn't and went to my office and completed the interview (took 3 more hours).
Why so long? I take notes, write down comments, stop/start/go back/, etc. It's like there's a me that seems to be in Alex and in Richard and then an independent me that wants to say, YES or... well, I understand but have you thought about this and sometimes I wish so bad I was there so I could throw out a thought it seems neither have considered (yet). I literally have a good 12 pages of highlights, thoughts, comments and this is just my first run through (I always strive to go through three times before I feel I've completed a full listen).
OK - so if I had to pin down three things... I would feature what I already posted as my favorite single line and favorite "verification" that Richard was comfortable (as of now) with holding the assumption that consciousness is at least "a fundamental" of reality.
But the next one on my top three is when he is honest as to his bias with regards to what has become the pointer phrase, "nuts and bolts" experiences over anecdotal (only) experiences if we have to label each as one or the other. I have a lot to say about that later but the importance in pointing this out is when Richard expresses his reasons why. The one that stood out the most (besides the obvious one - evidence and/or multiple witnesses seeing and describing the same thing) is what he calls the "unbalanced" individual telling their story. Alex jumps on that with the consideration that perhaps their appearance of being unbalanced has been caused by their experience.
I have spent the last three years exploring this very thing and I have an excellent subject that has worked closely with me during my exploration. I assessed the subject prior to my study with regards to their memories. Are most quite detailed? Is the subject able to articulate their experiences with regards to these details but also with regards to what they thought about them as they occurred, later in their life, and how they think about it today.
I have required that the subject be fully open and completely honest. In fact, I worked with this very subject heavily beginning in 2010 whereby I made the subject write, write, write besides just speak with me for the thousands and thousands of hours all and only to achieve a goal that without, the study would bear no fruit and thus be pointless. True - as perfectly as an imperfect person can be honesty.
This effort has resulted in no answers. But I haven't been disappointed because of what the results have produced. I can place the results in one of two categories. Category A - The revealing of unrecognized assumptions, assumptions that impact my (and the subjects) primary world view but also the sub-assumptions held within my (and the subjects) overall world view. Category B is comprised of questions which never had I considered before and can understand why based on what my Category A "bucket" held prior to various breakthroughs... meaning the B bucket continues to grow and the A bucket continues to diminish.
And my conclusion is that it is the questions that are the drivers of everything new and expansive. Assumptions, if treated for exactly what they are, can be helpful... but the minute an assumption becomes "fact" for the individual explorer, the fact is that whether or not the assumption is, indeed, a fact, ones route of exploration becomes more defined and definition can (and IMO always does) produce limitation. Don't conclude I am saying limitation is "bad" - that is for each of us to decide and change our minds about on our own as "bad" is, for me, ultimately subjective. Don't conclude I see "good and bad ET" or "good versus evil" as the hard core non-dualist is often perceived so to do (or as was exampled by pointing to Grant Cameron and Steven Greer).
My way of viewing things is by locating the point of view I am viewing from at that specific moment and considering that point of view in relation to what I am observing and/or considering, especially when it is a thought exercise.
I am working on the project of presenting my own "study" in relation to all the above. Maybe I complete it and release it before this body dies. I hope so but who knows. One thing about the subject - s/he definitely traversed the land of "unbalanced" during her/his journey. What was inspiring is that there have been junctures in this individual's journey where they seemed to achieve certain milestones which resulted in a shift in their appearance... a shift from producing a clear unbalanced impression to a more balanced impression. Yet, interestingly, the subject continued to experience things I really found hard to believe. But I also had multiple experiences with the subject where I observed what my mind immediately determining, "that can't happen." Then to, "how could that happen?"
I am still at "how can that happen" question and thankfully the more I discover limiting sub-assumptions, the more I feel I am getting closer to the answer - not in some way I can write down as a formula, more in that space created by an allowance for "inner silence." (thank you Skeptiko #436 - Don Hoffman)