She Brings Wicca to Psychotherapy With Tangible Results |329|

#61
I don't have a concrete idea of what the mental CONCEPT of CC is either. And I've had one NDE and several OBE's (which, btw, happened to me exactly as she described...beginning with vibrations). I did have one experience where I "merged with a golden being"....and woke up feeling exhilarated. Is that what Christ Consciousness FEELS like? My own opinion/interpretation of Christ consciousness is that it perhaps FEELS like a super-numinous ecstatic joyous experience with another "more than human" being. If so, then I had that experience, but was not compelled to identify the "golden being" as Christ. (Actually, the name Michael came to me as a name.)
Perhaps not nearly as prevalent as encounters with Christ (Consciousness), but many folks have claimed to have been "visited" by the Archangel Michael. He showed up several times, by name, in the Cayce Readings, as well. He makes quite a show, usually. ;-)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#62
Perhaps not nearly as prevalent as encounters with Christ (Consciousness), but many folks have claimed to have been "visited" by the Archangel Michael. He showed up several times, by name, in the Cayce Readings, as well. He makes quite a show, usually. ;-)
These people knew about Michael beforehand though right?
 
#63
First time posting - thanks for all the show has given me over the years, Alex.

A minor element of your discussion that ballooned for me because it highlights some of the frustrations of my search - and I sense of yours.

When speaking of her OBE she said she had read some stuff about such experiences prior to her own, but it was all "wanky." But now that she has actually had the experience she is convinced of its reality. SO it often goes I think. But she must consider that her writing about her OBE (or even discussing it on the show) will also undoubtedly appear equally "wanky" to folks just like she was prior to her experience. Like me for instance.

THE key question is, I think : how can we discuss and seek to understand super natural experiences if we have not experienced them ourselves? Two answers arise - one of which I feel is central to your show:

(a) Well, of course, we can seek out organizations, or even books, that try to teach us to have such experiences ourselves - such as The Monroe Institute. This essentially concedes the point that one will not be able ever to make sense of these ideas until one has experienced them oneself.

(b) We can seek to develop broader frameworks of understanding the universe that place these experiences of others in an expanded view of the nature of things that is consistent and also convincing - notwithstanding our not having had them ourselves. One way to do this is is to seek out truly scientific data - while avoiding scientism, we can seek to use the methods of science to validate and characterize the experiences - hence the works of Bem, Carpenter, Radin, Long, Beischel and so many others. Another way is to simply push for rigorous ontologies that redraw the big picture of reality in which these experiences take place - hence the works of Weiss, Kastrup, Auribundo, Bohm, even Tom Campbell or Jane Roberts.

I appreciate so much your continuing pressure on the show - on your guests and on yourself - to push ahead with (b).

I'm afraid your guest today did not seem to understand your questions on these lines. Essentially whenever you asked her to step back and view her ideas in a broader framework she ducked or seemed to misunderstand the effort. Things that she said which sounded like mere opinions - albeit well-crafted ones - were only reframed in a broader view which was also opinion - even if supported by her own experiences.

----------

- A final small point that stuck with me from the interview was her mention of the 12 year old boy who died by suicide. - a terrible thing. While she comfortably stated that he existed after his death and interacted in some way with his family and sister, she was quite certain that he did so as his 12-year-old personality; one that was wounded by his parents criticisms in his last moments of life and also reacting, still, as a now-discarnate soul, as a hurt child. This may well be how things work. How would I know. But I do know that the large body of reading I have done on NDE and after-death experience leans largely to the claim that our discarnate personalities are not hinged to our age or health or viewpoints at the time of death. There is a whole discordant philosophy of experience after death implicit in her description of this incident which went unattended.

regards - all,
Daryl
 
#64
I don't have a concrete idea of what the mental CONCEPT of CC is either. And I've had one NDE and several OBE's (which, btw, happened to me exactly as she described...beginning with vibrations). I did have one experience where I "merged with a golden being"....and woke up feeling exhilarated. Is that what Christ Consciousness FEELS like? My own opinion/interpretation of Christ consciousness is that it perhaps FEELS like a super-numinous ecstatic joyous experience with another "more than human" being. If so, then I had that experience, but was not compelled to identify the "golden being" as Christ. (Actually, the name Michael came to me as a name.) On the other hand, did my experiences cause a spiritual transformation? You bet.
While I enjoyed the interview, Alex, I had a difficult time when you were giving her the "hard ball" treatment. It all sounded a bit like a tautology...couldn't really understand what you were trying to get at.
I have read a few variations, but most seem related to the immersion of the experience, feeling one with the universe, etc. and not necessarily about the 'light at the end of the tunnel' being X or Y.

I have no idea what it actually feels like.
 
#65
this is a bit of a materialist trap... I mean, if yr accepting that these folks are having non-brain, after-death experiences, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to grill them on which Jesus (i.e. version of Christ consciousness) they saw.
I don't think this is necessarily a materialist/immaterialist thing, but another way of trying to get hold of the experience and work out what's going on. I'll leave it there though as we seem to be getting on so well ;)
 
#66
I'm afraid your guest today did not seem to understand your questions on these lines. Essentially whenever you asked her to step back and view her ideas in a broader framework she ducked or seemed to misunderstand the effort. Things that she said which sounded like mere opinions - albeit well-crafted ones - were only reframed in a broader view which was also opinion - even if supported by her own experiences.
I agree, and I think Alex might have done better to back out of that line of questioning when it obviously went nowhere. I think Jane could really only tell us about her own experience of these phenomena.
This may well be how things work. How would I know. But I do know that the large body of reading I have done on NDE and after-death experience leans largely to the claim that our discarnate personalities are not hinged to our age or health or viewpoints at the time of death. There is a whole discordant philosophy of experience after death implicit in her description of this incident which went unattended.
Well my impression is that when old people die, they are appear back in their prime, but I am not sure if that applies to those that die as children.

David
 
#67
These people knew about Michael beforehand though right?
I can't remember the specifics but, no, I don't believe they did in all cases, but I'm sure the majority probably had. However, everybody in Western Culture has heard of him at one time, or another, so I guess we could argue we all know of Michael, even if its buried in our unconscious somewhere, which can of course spontaneously re-surface memories/experiences/etc.
 
#68
Well this is what I objected to.

She doesn't 'claim' the title of doctor, I assume she genuinely has a PhD! I am sure that when she agreed to the interview, she expected to ignite a brisk discussion, but not to be attacked personally - particularly when she was very non-aggressive herself.

I don't want to ban him, I just want him to realise that being rude to someone on here just because they have a vastly different point of view, can quickly become very unpleasant.

David
noted :)
 
#69
First time posting - thanks for all the show has given me over the years, Alex.
yr most welcome :) glad yr here.

A minor element of your discussion that ballooned for me because it highlights some of the frustrations of my search - and I sense of yours.

When speaking of her OBE she said she had read some stuff about such experiences prior to her own, but it was all "wanky." But now that she has actually had the experience she is convinced of its reality... THE key question how can we discuss and seek to understand super natural experiences if we have not experienced them ourselves?
I hear ya! and I'd extend the question -- how do we understand... whether we've had the experience or not? I recently heard a really good answer to this from someone I hope to have on Skeptiko. basically, he said it requires a "spiritual community" and that this is really what all the great wisdom traditions were/are about before becoming corrupted. so, first we need a genuine spirit reality (none of this matters if there isn't someone on the other end of the call), then, we also need a community, and elders, and maybe some ritual/ceremony, and some devotional practices, and other stuff. what I like about what he's saying (even if I don't totally agree) is that these are necessary... and hard earned. kinda explains how new age-y stuff falls apart so easily.

- A final small point that stuck with me from the interview was her mention of the 12 year old boy who died by suicide. - a terrible thing. While she comfortably stated that he existed after his death and interacted in some way with his family and sister, she was quite certain that he did so as his 12-year-old personality; one that was wounded by his parents criticisms in his last moments of life and also reacting, still, as a now-discarnate soul, as a hurt child. This may well be how things work. How would I know. But I do know that the large body of reading I have done on NDE and after-death experience leans largely to the claim that our discarnate personalities are not hinged to our age or health or viewpoints at the time of death. There is a whole discordant philosophy of experience after death implicit in her description of this incident which went unattended.
totally agree... actually thought the same as she was saying it, but didn't want to send her off the rails too early :)
 
#70
Alex said:
Versus, if I speak to someone and they practice magic, and the first thing they tell me is about Aleister Crowley and “do what thou wilt” — I don’t get it. Love, selfless service speaks to my heart. “Do what thou wilt”, I can’t get there. It comes back and it starts sounding a lot like power, control…
If you say that I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what Crowley meant Recently, thanks to a post by someone here on the forum, I've been listening to some videos and podcasts by Mark Passio. I seriously think that you should listen to his talks on Natural Law, and then perhaps revisit what you think Crowley meant.

Cheers,
Bill
 
#71
Do you mean a tulpa? A manifestation of individual or group anxiety or aspiration?
I can't find any mention of The Kruger Effect. Can you point to some reference?
Wow I'm an idiot, I'm sorry. I didn't realize how many comments came after mine that quickly and really should've checked. This was what I wrote on teh Kruger Effect on the first page. These are my own observations and definitions and I don't think I've ever written them down anywhere else before so I would have been surprised and concerned if you HAD managed to find them on google :D

In my research and experience I've encountered a thing I call The Kruger Effect which is defined as the ability for things encountered in projection to have direct, physical effects on the body under certain conditions. Not, cancer or getting a sore throat or mood swings which could likely be caused by many different unseen factors but direct physical things like scratches, burns and the like. I do not typically include bruises in this deinition because they also have other known, more likely, psychosomatic causes despite being encountered commonly as well. The Kruger Effect is divided into two known categories,



Type A: Direct physical effects that occur instantaneously to the physical body after/while being done to the spirit body. Albeit usually at a reduced yet variable severity which is something I've yet to find an explanation for. Example, you get slashed on the arm up there and a small, long, shallow cut appears on your arm in the exact same place at the exact same time down here.



Type B: Arguably more severe, does not leave a physical mark of any kind but seems to drain the energy of the area as if a physical wound were present at the same level of severity as it exists on the spirit body. Has been known to cause paralysation, numbness, loss of circulation and pain.



Wounds caused to the physical body from things attacking the spirit body need to heal just like normal wounds. Type B's are nicer this way because, since they have no physical wound, they seem to merely need to recharge the lost energy and fill in the mould that is the physical body. This allows full and relatively speedy recovery from what would otherwise be permanent or fatal injuries. I should know.



If we follow the Philip K. Dick line of reasoning. That reality is that which, when we stop believing in it, doesn't go away. It would be logical to surmise that since the Kruger effect injury lingers regardless of belief or awareness it must therefore be "real." If the injury is real then the thing that appeared to have caused the injury is probably also "real." I.e NOT just my personal experience. Not just my perception, but something that exists outside of my control affecting me based on what would probably have to be some form of arbitrary rules, such as the laws of physics. If this were not true, and it really was my personal expereince, I should be able to just imagine the wounds away. Or even, imagine away the thing that seemed to cause the wounds in the first place before the injury happens. But that doesn't work, so it's probably not me.



This explanation is highly oversimplified to keep it short so if you find errors in the reasoning that is probably why. Ask whatever you want.
 
#72
I hear ya! and I'd extend the question -- how do we understand... whether we've had the experience or not? I recently heard a really good answer to this from someone I hope to have on Skeptiko. basically, he said it requires a "spiritual community" and that this is really what all the great wisdom traditions were/are about before becoming corrupted.
I dissagree that it requires a community. I think in fact a community judging what you claim to have experienced and arbitrating your life and knowledge for you is the worst possible thing to do and kinda what got the paranormal commmunity in the situation it's in now with the "mainstream" not wanting to listen to them.

So here's an example of one of my successful solutions to this:

When I was getting more into projection and was having a myriad of confirmed shared dreams and shared projections I got frustrated that the only way I could reliably tell whether a projection/dream was "real" or not was confirming it after the fact. It would be so much more useful if I could tell if it was real from within the projection/dream. So I decided to pay extra attention to confirmed hits and see what was common amongst all of them and what was different from unconfirmed or obviously non-shared versions. Over time I started to notice a pattern of how the projections/dreams felt when they had later been confirmed. I then developed experiments to test if I was right, to see if I could predict the reality of a shared dream/projection before asking the applicable person. Turned out I could.... kinda. It highlighted a bunch of other quirks in them that I wasn't fully aware of at the time that could cause what should otherwise be real shared events to not occur. Largely involving a phenomenon I call "Time Dialation" which I really need a better name for. Basically, projections, shared dreams, and even poltergeisting do not neccessarily have to happen at the exact moment that they are done. Or rather they do, but it is possible for you to be targetting a time period other than the one you are currently in. Meaning that the event won't happen until the actual time you were targetting rolls around. And ONLY IF somehow you don't switch paths to another timeline. It is easily the most frustrating phenomenon I have yet to experience because of how it completely destroys reliability and replication because it's so fucking finicky and hard to target. And even more frustating, it turns out you can even target periods in the past as well. Which makes aiming a projection/poltergeist feel like trying to hit a bird in flight 800 meters away aiming across about 6 different axis using a sniper rifle without a scope. Words cannot describe how much I hate it.

I say all this because I didn't need a "spiritual community" to determine whether or not my experiences were real or not. I just used the scientific method. and was done with it.
 
#73
When I was getting more into projection and was having a myriad of confirmed shared dreams and shared projections I got frustrated that the only way I could reliably tell whether a projection/dream was "real" or not was confirming it after the fact. It would be so much more useful if I could tell if it was real from within the projection/dream. So I decided to pay extra attention to confirmed hits and see what was common amongst all of them and what was different from unconfirmed or obviously non-shared versions. Over time I started to notice a pattern of how the projections/dreams felt when they had later been confirmed. I then developed experiments to test if I was right, to see if I could predict the reality of a shared dream/projection before asking the applicable person. Turned out I could.... kinda. It highlighted a bunch of other quirks in them that I wasn't fully aware of at the time that could cause what should otherwise be real shared events to not occur. Largely involving a phenomenon I call "Time Dialation" which I really need a better name for. Basically, projections, shared dreams, and even poltergeisting do not neccessarily have to happen at the exact moment that they are done. Or rather they do, but it is possible for you to be targetting a time period other than the one you are currently in. Meaning that the event won't happen until the actual time you were targetting rolls around. And ONLY IF somehow you don't switch paths to another timeline. It is easily the most frustrating phenomenon I have yet to experience because of how it completely destroys reliability and replication because it's so fucking finicky and hard to target. And even more frustating, it turns out you can even target periods in the past as well. Which makes aiming a projection/poltergeist feel like trying to hit a bird in flight 800 meters away aiming across about 6 different axis using a sniper rifle without a scope. Words cannot describe how much I hate it.

I say all this because I didn't need a "spiritual community" to determine whether or not my experiences were real or not. I just used the scientific method. and was done with it.
Mediochre,

I think it would be great if you started a thread of your own - e.g. in Extended Consciousness or in Critical Discussions. This would let us all focus on your particular experiences and experiments.

There are, of course, lots of people who would claim that the phenomena you are describing are impossible (other than by uninteresting means - for example if you both watched the same film or TV program before bed, you might each have a dream that seemed correlated, but were in fact correlated to your shared prior experience. They will also attack you because you seem to have elaborated your test for matching by including a variety of quirky effects - statistics buffs see a red light when data can be matched in more than one way!

I suppose you could call this place a spiritual community (sort of), and they really can help - for example, a lot of people report precognitive dreams, and I wonder if you have observed such an effect. By keeping a dream diary, you could explore this effect too. One person here, Andrew Paquette has had many precognitive dreams, and has written a book about his dreams. One in particular stands out. He dreamed about a particular area of a city, and as I remember, he dreamed of taking a shortcut down a side street, there were lots of details, but in the end he was attacked and killed. He then encountered that very situation in real life, but because we was fore-warned, he was able to avoid the attack.

I rather hope that you can begin to see how one person's scientific method can be attacked by others for being unscientific. After all, if the science of these phenomena could be resolved so easily, phenomena such as you describe would be accepted scientific fact. If you stick around here, you will realise just how blurred is the distinction between science and non-science in this area (and many others).

David
 
#74
I rather hope that you can begin to see how one person's scientific method can be attacked by others for being unscientific. After all, if the science of these phenomena could be resolved so easily, phenomena such as you describe would be accepted scientific fact. If you stick around here, you will realise just how blurred is the distinction between science and non-science in this area (and many others).

David
Just because the protocols can be tightened doesn't make it outside the purview of science. The entire point of parapsychology is finding scientific ways to test these purported phenomena.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#75
Science relies on change observed through one's consciousness.

As such it's not so beyond the pale to think aspects of Change (Time, Causation, Regularities) as well as Consciousness (Qualia, Intentionality) would not be fundamentally explained by scientific study.
 
#76
If you say that I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what Crowley meant Recently, thanks to a post by someone here on the forum, I've been listening to some videos and podcasts by Mark Passio. I seriously think that you should listen to his talks on Natural Law, and then perhaps revisit what you think Crowley meant.

Cheers,
Bill
thx. yes, I'd like to revisit Crowley. I have queued up some vids (anyone know of other semi-entertaining sources).

but just so we're understanding... my starting point is that "do what thou wilt" is a slippery slope... not always bad... and sometimes best/right... but still slippery. of course, so is joining a cultist religious group that espouses "peace and love" but that's another story. I playing with the idea that the secret of the assent is to always look up... not down as Crowley suggests.
 
#77
I dissagree that it requires a community. I think in fact a community judging what you claim to have experienced and arbitrating your life and knowledge for you is the worst possible thing to do...
totally get what yr saying... and this is very much my nature (not a joiner :)) but I want to explore the wisdom of community because I think there's something to it... stay tuned :)
 
#78
thx. yes, I'd like to revisit Crowley. I have queued up some vids (anyone know of other semi-entertaining sources).

but just so we're understanding... my starting point is that "do what thou wilt" is a slippery slope... not always bad... and sometimes best/right... but still slippery. of course, so is joining a cultist religious group that espouses "peace and love" but that's another story. I playing with the idea that the secret of the assent is to always look up... not down as Crowley suggests.
Where do you get the idea that he suggests looking "down?" I'd be interested in seeing that. I've not studied Crowley's writings or his ideas directly. I'm looking at a few sources describing this particular aspect, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Will

This describes ideas that I'm very familiar with from other sources, and over the past 18 years I have come to the conclusion that these point in the right direction. It has nothing to do with the "little will" of the personality/lower ego, but have do with our ability to contact, align with, and resonate with the "Big Will" or the pure center of consciousness (the Soul, Higher Self, whatever you want to call it) which is the transcendent part of us that is seeking to carry out Divine Will through a series of incarnations.

Rather than watching videos on Crowley, I suggest you take a look Passio's lectures on Natural Law (e.g. that which is "hermetically sealed"). I don't know who the author(s) of this site is, but they seem to have given these topics a lot of thought, and while they have some disagreements with Passio, they describe his presentations of Natural Law as "worthy of a Nobel Peace Price":

http://thebiggestpicture.net/Mark_Passio

I tend to agree that they are as good as any I've encountered. For people who've come to the conclusion that reality goes much deeper than the scientifically observed aspects of physical reality, I suggest these ideas, which have been around a very, very, long time are worthy of consideration.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Last edited:
#79
Mediochre,

I think it would be great if you started a thread of your own - e.g. in Extended Consciousness or in Critical Discussions. This would let us all focus on your particular experiences and experiments.
I plan to but I'm still trying to figure out how to start it and what to say. However I have not taken the approach of gathering data for the purpose of attempting to prove it to other people. I've learned a lot about some of the failing of purely evidence based reasoning through my training. Largely that, since you can't physically have 100% of the possible data in the universe, it's logically impossible to 100% prove anything to anyone. Thus making purely evidence based reasoning, ironically, more faith based than I suspect some people realize.

Instead I took more of a research and development stance considering that's what I wanted anyways. I recognized that the things I wanted straight up didn't exist yet and set myself goals and definitions of what I wanted. I then started plugging away until I started figuring out how to make things happen that met my criteria. Now I'm trying to refine it into something practical that I could use to do real on the spot demonstrations which is the only thing I suspect anyone would remotely consider proof anyways. Until I get to that stage I really don't care if someone believes me or not, because I already know I'd never be able to prove it to them if they didn't and wouldn't gasin anything even if I did convert them. I won't waste my time trying. But hey if someone wants to try my methods as well and help me figure out what's just my style and what's actually objective that'd be great.
 
#80
I plan to but I'm still trying to figure out how to start it and what to say. However I have not taken the approach of gathering data for the purpose of attempting to prove it to other people. I've learned a lot about some of the failing of purely evidence based reasoning through my training. Largely that, since you can't physically have 100% of the possible data in the universe, it's logically impossible to 100% prove anything to anyone. Thus making purely evidence based reasoning, ironically, more faith based than I suspect some people realize.
Well I understand, but I think Jane Kent had similar issues. When people came to her for help, she seems to have done what she felt was right for them - with some success - but that also made it hard for her to collect scientific evidence!
Instead I took more of a research and development stance considering that's what I wanted anyways. I recognized that the things I wanted straight up didn't exist yet and set myself goals and definitions of what I wanted. I then started plugging away until I started figuring out how to make things happen that met my criteria. Now I'm trying to refine it into something practical that I could use to do real on the spot demonstrations which is the only thing I suspect anyone would remotely consider proof anyways.
Well I hope you succeed, but I suspect most sceptics will find some way not to accept what you present because they don't see this as seeking after truth, but presenting their point of view at all costs.
Until I get to that stage I really don't care if someone believes me or not, because I already know I'd never be able to prove it to them if they didn't and wouldn't gasin anything even if I did convert them. I won't waste my time trying. But hey if someone wants to try my methods as well and help me figure out what's just my style and what's actually objective that'd be great.
It may still be valuable to involve other people - not to convert them - but to get useful advice.

David
 
Top