This is your brain on drugs

I realize that a single case doesn't prove much, but this horrifying and ghastly news story may help explain why I still look askance at hallucinogenic drugs, even if they do, in some cases, have mind-expanding properties.

In northern California an American "cage fighter" allegedly took some tea brewed from psychedelic mushrooms and then became convinced that his roommate was possessed by the devil. The results were not pretty.

Warning: extremely graphic content.

A more detailed and somewhat less sensationalistic account is found here.

I'm not saying that properly supervised experimentation with psychedelics in controlled circumstances is necessarily a bad idea, but clearly there are potentially grave dangers associated with casual use. Like, for instance, having your tongue cut out, your face ripped off, and your beating heart excised from your chest ...

The story does make me wonder if psychedelics played a role in the sacrifices conducted by Aztec priests. The extraction of the victim's heart was a notable feature of these rituals.

Comments

[.]

More tea, anyone ?
:-)

[Paul]

@ Sandy
I don't insist on anything. I merely mention that saying you don't like what someone says sometimes isn't helpful. It is more helpful to say what it is that you don't like. Personally I think you could have put it more tactfully but if that's how you feel I am sure Louise will respond politely if she feels the need.

I don't think Louis is overly critical - we will have to agree to differ. She does ask questions about what people say and sometimes shows what appears to be frustration at other's replies but I don't think I have read anything that suggests she is unreasonable or rude.

When you mention your own experiences perhaps some do roll their eyes. Some however do not. Those who have done even a little research may view your own experiences as, at worst, neutral and unverifiable. You know what you know and those who haven't had an opportunity to form a view are welcome to theirs, but it can be no more than an opinion not based on observation for them can it?

I do not know whether Louise's experiences are genuine or not and neither do you. She seems a reasonable person to me in her postings leaving Louis aside. I have no frame of reference for determining absolutely whether Louis is a real personality or not.

I don't think this blog is particularly combative. If individuals can make statements that cannot be properly challenged; or if there is a persistent avoidance of the question and this cannot be addressed, then this blog is going to be a pretty dull place with little opportunity to learn.

Frankly I think posters like William give sceptics a field day and make it more difficult to have a sensible discussion about phenomena and survival. That's just my view and I certainly wouldn't expect a person to be prevented from expressing such view, even if it was my own forum.

[william]

At his spiritual level Hitler is innocent but his choices and actions were evil and he and others like him must be death with.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Please explain.
Glad to this is progress at least this is a form of dialog.

First the word death must have been a Freudian slip or an outright mistake take your pick. The words death with was meant to mean dealt or dwelt with. We must as a stable and secure society deal with such evil phenomena. Stating that original sin is not a reality but the reality is our original innocence is not a utopian statement but a statement about the underlying reality of phenomena.

Sin and evil and personal culpability and blameworthiness are not realities but they are an outcome of judging by appearances. All sin all evil have as their underlying reality misguided desires or a misguided longing for completeness in all the wrong places and approaches of course but never the less that spiritual longing is there for Hitler as well as a saint.

Now ask yourself what is the origin of those misguided desires. One may reply that it is selfishness then ask the origin of that selfishness, etc. if you ask that question long enough you might arrive at the place of spiritual discernment of that misguided desire as ignorance (unawareness) and the underlying reality of that ignorance is our being created innocent of our perfect reality for a very good reason for without that innocence there is no us just God or Isness.

We owe our soul not to the company store but to our original innocence. Translated in God’s eyes we are always innocent; in our eyes that lack perfect awareness we are blameworthy and culpable. The creation of souls demands our original innocence.

When we see this innocence in this longing we no longer are judging by appearances we have reached a point of spiritual discernment. I suspect this will come across as a religious statement because the Christian world made the source of these teachings a God but Jesus not only taught spiritual discernment but it appears he lived it by example. Two examples come to mind where Jesus saw this underlying reality of phenomena. When he told the woman who was accused of adultery nor do I condemn thee and to go and sin no more. On the cross he stated forgive them they know not what they do (if I might add here forgive them they know not what they do for they were created in innocence and they lack spiritual discernment). In both examples he saw the underlying innocence of the phenomena.

What I have been unable to communicate on here is that there are phenomena and there is an underlying reality to those phenomena. The relative phenomenal world exists for a reason, a spiritual reason. These phenomena have an underlying reality but we tend to judge by appearances and then we miss the underlying reality of these phenomena.

This is why Jesus stated judge not by appearances he did not mean personal appearances but this underlying reality of appearances. This is why I have repeatedly stated don’t get caught up in the source of the information. This is why I often tell people if the Christian devil wrote a book I would read it. This is the role of understanding.

If we just label Hitler as evil and leave it at that we have not sought the underlying reality of his evil deeds, which were in the realm of phenomena. The spirits book makes a claim that his father had more to do with his evil deeds than Hitler. This is not to be accepted as fact but as a point of information.

From my point of view spiritual seeking is moving beyond appearances and to seek understanding of this underlying reality of this relative phenomenal world. The study of Deming’s teachings on variation helped me tremendously on the relative part and several other spiritual teachings have helped me on having knowledge and some understanding of the underlying reality of the phenomenal aspect of the relative phenomenal world.

This was a good question and I thank you for that. Do not trust anything I say or anyone but from my point of view don’t focus on the source but on the information. My persona gets in the way of these teachings always. Try to overlook the persona of this messenger called William seek instead spiritual discernment of this underlying reality of phenomena.

[Zerdini]

I agree with Paul. He makes very sensible points as indeed do Louise and Sandy.

William, on the other hand, avoids answering reasonable questions and can, on occasion, when his mask slips, be quite rude and patronising.

I've come across a few people like him before - they don't annoy me - I simply find them amusing. The words/phrases spiritual conceit and spiritual snobbery spring to mind. Or not.

[Zerdini]

First the word death must have been a Freudian slip or an outright mistake take your pick. The words death with was meant to mean dealt or dwelt with.

Now the sentence makes sense!

As for the rest of your statement......A short while ago you wrote: "I care nothing about your sources it matters not to who you claim as a source. You could claim Jesus as a source and it matters not to me."

Now you claim Jesus to back up your statements - it just won't wash, William.

It would be much better if you tried answering my questions but you won't.

I won't, as you suggest, trust anything you say.

[william]

“Gee William, I tend to consider where the advice is coming from before I try things out”

This is because you still judge by appearances and maybe you have yet to learn spiritual discernment. But you will the law of progress demands that we all do. Every single soul no one is left behind. Might I suggest the study of phenomenology to help one move past this judging by appearances aspect of our innocence?

Of course my style of writing may have more to do with your responses than you ability for spiritual discernment. But this is still judging by appearances. Dwell on these teachings that Jesus made and others. It is profound teachings. I fail daily in living up to the wisdom of these teachings. I never met anyone that did not fail in living up to the guidance of these teachings to judge not by appearances but judge by righteous judgment.

A synonym for righteous is blameless. Meditate on that aspect of these teachings for they are profound teachings not by me but others. Louise sees this righteous judgment as wimpy and not acting as a mature adult. Again judging by appearances which we all do daily. You without judging by appearances throw the first stone was and is pure divine intelligence in action.

Always remember that ignorance has it origin as our original innocence. It is not a sin to be ignorant but it is troublesome.

Without that original innocence which our imperfect eyes see as ignorance rather than innocence there is no us. We exist because of our “ignorance”. The entire journey of the soul as an expression of Infinite is our eternal journey from “ignorance” to greater and greater spiritual discernment.

Now the left behind series of books sold maybe 40 million copies. It appears the more ignorance meaning unawareness in a book the better the sales. My keeper books that I consider the most advanced teachings were not that popular. There are exceptions of course. There were only 100 copies of a self-published book by Gunnels entitled the evolution of the soul. He came sooooooooo close to discovering the origin of our ignorance. Thank you Gunnels for taking the time and your own resources to publish 100 copies of your own spiritual discernments. I am a recipient of one of those books. Fate?

[william]

“I won't, as you suggest, trust anything you say.”

That is you’re very right to do so and I wish you well in your mode of being in the world by judging by appearances.

You totally failed to understand it was not the person Jesus that I quoted but the wisdom of his teachings. It could come from a homeless person it matters not. That was my point.

You are not interested in dialog but in defending your bruised ego. But this “dialog” teaches me much not only about judging by appearances but my own need to change my mode of being in the world. I thank you for that.

You see as I respond to your comments and questions; words sometimes entire paragraphs come to me. This is helpful in my own journey. I would prefer sincere dialog but I will take it as it comes.

These are profound teachings not by me but others but yet most are more concerned with William’s persona then the teachings. These teachings are not new. Some existed over 100 years ago and the person that received these teachings as a medium then presented these teachings was rejected by most if not all that heard them. His wife kept them and wrote a book about revealing them to the world but the world had little interest. As I have learned even today the world has little interest.

The more profound the teachings the fewer that have interest in them. Jesus is not followed because of his teachings but most often because they made him God. They centered on the source of the teachings because they lacked understanding of his teachings. He warned them not to do that just like the Buddha did but the world still judges by appearances and lacks spiritual discernment and worships the source.

enough time to mow the lawn. :-)

[Zerdini]

Gee William you will have more success mowing your lawn than trying to insult people who respond to your fatuous drivel and will, no doubt, get more response.

One day you will learn to actually respond to the questions put to you then we can have a meaningful dialogue. Or not. lol

Best of luck, mate.

[Paul]

It is like reading a fortune cookie LMAO.

[Roger Knights]

More tea, anyone ? :-)

Posted by: . | June 04, 2010 at 11:01 AM

(... Sip ... Ahhh ... )

Say, where'd you get those horns???

[william]

“your fatuous drivel”

You just called the quote by Jesus fatuous drivel; the Christians would not take kindly to those comments. Without realizing it you called the Christian God foolish. Tell me who is the foolish one. Yes I know how you will respond to that one.

The teachings do not judge by appearances but judge by righteous judgment is profound teachings that display spiritual discernment it matters not if it were to be taught by a homeless person or a saint or the Christian devil itself.

I know these teachings are difficult to even consider as they go against the world’s paradigm of reality. But most of the world focuses on phenomena not the underlying reality of phenomena. Now Louise gave me excellent feedback with her remarks on wimpy and mature adult. This is good feedback we can use because it is common feedback I get when I present this in a verbal format. This is a reflection of my inability to present these teachings effectively. So I thank Louise for that feedback.

As far as answering your questions I have give it my best shot time and time again and you come back with what the course in miracles calls attacks. Now here is the really spiritual part. These attacks or responses or whatever are not uninvited. We are not victims of karma. We are recipients of karma. What we sow we reap gives us perfect feedback.

Taken another step in spiritual discernment the universe might be called “perfectly imperfect”. I would mention the author of that quote but I know where that would go in your mind from past experience.

I am sorry that you are unable to see that judging by appearances is not righteous judgement whether in written form or verbal or visual is a lack of spiritual discernment. To call such a quote fatuous drivel surely you can see is the height of ignorance. I don’t think you really mean that from what I have read from some of your other comments to others.

Always remember the origin of our ignorance; it is more comforting to our fragile egos.

[sw]

William,
As an unbiased observer, I think you need to have a rest...(or a re-think of your compositions) from posting comments. They are not up to the standard that they used to be two years ago. You used to make some really good points, especially when you were arguing with Art(who also made good points)

Zerdini et al

It's fair comment, but c'mon, enough is enough.

[Paul]

I agree SW it isn't very nice but William posts a lot of content on here. Very little of it seems to me to be of much value, it is often patronising and almost always unintelligible to mere mortals like me.

I find the process of wading through it tedious but often necessary to get to the essential point of the topic under discussion (many of which are very interesting indeed)which is usually made by those other them William. Is it OK for to spout on and on unchecked and not answer reasonable questions but not OK to persist in challenging some of the things he has said and the way he has said them?

Running away from the discussion because it gets a bit fractious may suit William because he can continue serving the same old tripe, however I don't think it is fair on others who object to his approach, many of whom contribute a great deal of factual information and useful thought to some of the topics under discussion.

Maybe William is right in a sense, the best way to deal with him is to develop our ignorance by practicing it on him. It is however difficult to do this when his voice appears to be omnipresent.

[Louise]

Sandy, your comments made me smile. Do you think I haven't heard that sort of response before? Probably most people posting here would be described as flakes by those who don't believe in any sort of psi phenomena or afterlife or so on. I'm not about to tell you your experiences are not real, or that you're a nutter, whatever your interpretation of them may be. You don't know me or my internal life any more than I do you. Before my own experiences, I too wouldn't have believed much of what was written here, by anyone. If that's how you or anyone responds to what I write, it doesn't matter. Like Paul - he's quite capable of saying he can't really accept what I write about them, and that's no problem. He's free to make up his own mind, as are you, and as am I about anything here.

And I remind you: one, my first post to William was writing advice. It was not merely "I don't like your style," or "let him be" as you suggested I do; it was an attempt to provide some of the feedback he asks for. If he pursues publication, he is going to get all that and more. On top of that, if he gets published, he's going to cop a lot more criticism than I or anyone here has offered, and it will be a lot harsher, believe me. The nature of the work dictates that, not personalities (although you can bet he'll get personally attacked and called a flake, among other things).

Seriously, if you have a problem with my experiences and interpretation of them, that's your problem, not mine. It doesn't bother me, but it seems to be colouring your responses to my posts, which at least explains them. I know what's happened to me just as you know what's happened to you. I disagree with William's line of thought on many things. So do many other posters here. Ditto his style. It's part of discussing things. I'm not enamoured of combativeness either, but frustration will out. Obviously it has for both of us, lol!

Best wishes,
Louise

[Zerdini]

You just called the quote by Jesus fatuous drivel; the Christians would not take kindly to those comments.

NO I did not. I called your long and unnecessary statement 'fatuous drivel' I was not addressing Christians, Buddhists or any other religious group - I was addressing you. Don't twist what I said to suit yourself.

William wrote:

"My only realization came with Dr. Deming’s teachings as the relationship of ignorance and the relative phenomenal world. I care nothing about your sources it matters not to who you claim as a source. You could claim Jesus as a source and it matters not to me.

You continue to parrot Dening's teachings - i.e. "Do not compromise" - have you no original thought?

I could go on but as SW said 'enough is enough'.

I will be visiting the USA/Canada next week and would love to meet you just to see if you talk the same way as you write but it will not be possible.

[Michael Prescott]

FYI for anyone who might be interested, the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature just posted a brief piece about "the constrained vision" of human nature, which explains the point better than I did:

http://tinyurl.com/2ayg2oy

They use Steven Pinker's term, the Tragic Vision, which is more poetic, though perhaps a little overstated. I guess I would think of it as the Realistic Vision, though I admit this is tendentious....

[Ben]

Interesting link, MP. But to say (as the article you linked to) that society “more or less works” is to say nothing, really, is it? All societies more or less work! Sure, we can measure society’s success by the longevity of its members and the number of machine-guns or food crops or computers it produces, but we can also measure it by other qualities like how many holy men it produces (India), how happy its people are (Nigeria), or how much they respect Nature (aboriginal or Native Americans). It’s heretical in the West to say this, but “Life is good, death is bad” can’t actually be literally true, can it, for at least two reasons: 1. The world cannot sustain an increasing ageing population forever; 2. Death means the afterlife, which is (so I understand!) better than here. It only seems true to us with our cultural values, here, now. It has not, nor will it always and everywhere be true.

If we want to turn everything into literally true/good or literally false/bad, then we are in danger of moving towards the ‘digital physics’ view of reality, which has attracted me, but which ultimately, I find terribly wanting. Human minds work with heuristics, not algorithms, and are actually quite keen to move beyond the bounds of simple true or false answers – rather, we need continually changing, contextual answers. If we think, for instance, that only the materialism of science and technology are the answers to everything (much as I’m fascinated by them), then we will likely self-destruct.

We need to be able to contain contradictions within us (as the traditional cultures do, quite easily, eg when they think a man can be a man and a were-leopard simultaneously -but metaphorically, not literally) and work with both rather than choose between them, otherwise we’re never going to expand our worldview beyond a certain point. We can be larger, we can contain multitudes, and our societies can therefore get better, but only if we use our imaginations.

To say that the ‘perfect is the enemy of the good’ is a sweet idea –I like it, but what does “good” mean”? Does it mean “more or less work”? Erich’s view of the police was not that they were good, but that they were bad. Somehow, “the perfect is the enemy of the bad” doesn’t quite have the same ring. It leaves room to imagine that we might make improvements in some way.

[Erich]

Ben, that was a most intelligent comment. I very much enjoyed reading it......and then re-re-reading it. Thank you.

[Erich]

oh, and Sandy, your comment re; Louise expresses my own sentiments perfectly.

[Ben]

Erich,
thank you - but it's you who radiate intelligence. So of course, does MP. And I have to say, that I deeply love both Louise and Sandy. This blog greatly benefits from both of their highly original contributions.
(No -I'm not on anything, honest officer.)

[Erich]

Well, I simply do not agree with Louise's opinion regarding the value and permanance of the historic personality. It is contrary to my own experiences and it is as contrary to common sense as it is to most spiritual doctines as well most mediumistic communications. I am in my 40s. I am not even the same person I was 20 years ago, let alone 30 or 40 years ago. My life experiences and learning have changed me in some very significant ways. I'd to think that when I pass over to the other side I will have my awareness further opened such that I grow far beyond what I am today. I can image that in an eternity or two I would be a most different - hopefully much better - being; quite unrecognizable from the being I am today.

Not that my disagreement with Louise makes her wrong; just that I am suspicious of the veracity of her claims based on the above.

Furthermore, this whole idea of Louise's spirit friend Louis strikes me as something that lends itself to an opportunity for hard proof. If Louis is real, then have him produce some evidence. Have him identify the location of an object hidden during his life time. Have him provide veridical statements concerning something occurring today, but not possibly know to Louise by ordinary means. Maybe even something concerning MP or you or me........

[Ben]

Erich -personally, I would expect clear objective evidence to be hard to come by, because I doubt the existence of a single objective reality. I prefer the idea of different consensual realities.

You probably recall that when Susan Blackmore had her famous OBE that the guttering was iron rather than plastic outside her college window. Imagination and expectation had their part to play in constructing the scene she saw.

[Paul]

Erich

I think your comment regarding 'produce the evidence' is what it boils down to (whether in the instance of Louise or not).

Anything else looks to me like conjecture. We may for our own opinion about what Louise says but either way, without sufficient evidence to support it, it is hard to reach a definite conclusion.

I don't think Louise has ever asked anyone on here to help her reach a conclusion so as far as I can see one can take it or leave it.

I do remember Louise saying that Louis is a well known personality so I suspect in this case it would be hard to provide unequivocal evidence. How one views that is, I think a personal matter.

Your comments regarding the permanence of 'historic personality', I tend to agree, assuming I have rightly understood that to mean that it isn't fixed at any point. My own experience is that I am not the same person I was at 20, however perhaps I am now a super-set of the 20 year old? Perhaps there is a core element to my personality and what you see today is an extension of that (or a reduction depending on your opinion) - what do you think?

[.]

- Roger Knights comment,,,sip..aaah...say, where'd you get those horns ?
Excellent Lol.

[Erich]

Paul,

Some "core elements" remain, for me personally, albeit in very modified ways, and other elements that I would have thought were core, have slipped away.

Of the seemingly core elements that are no longer present, some of those I deliberately worked on changing (sometimes with the help of mushrooms ;-). So how core were they? Essentially these were traits I developed as maladaptations, quite subconsciously, as a way of coping with traumas, life's challenges, fears and all of that.

Core elements that I have kept are those adaptations that are positive and functional. But I recognize these as adaptations; as ways of channeling my energies that are useful. Maybe this is our "super-set"?

There is some feeling - or maybe set of feelings - encased in my being that I think is the real/core "me". Yet, even these have changed in that have grown more clear, more certain, more prominent.

The feeling(s) that I am referring to is so sublime that if you took this feeling(s) and placed it (via reincarnation?) in another body, I don't think anyone would say, "hey, that person is possessed by the soul of Erich". Still, they might recognize something. They might say, if they are able to be sensitive enough to look beyond the surface of employment type, habits, attire, "that person reminds me of Erich. They are the same kind of person". At least this is what I think.

What I am trying to say is that, IMO, the core is an essence, a spirit which, at it's most detailed level, is akin to a nuance of a Jungian archetype, while the personality, even what would be considered core features a la psychotherapy, is basically a learned stimulus/response set; the product of environmental, cultural and genetic influences.

[Paul]

Hi Erich
I think I get what you are saying. Perhaps the key element is that you recognise yourself rather than that someone else necessarily does (if that makes sense)?

Whether someone else recognises you as the person you were 20 years ago or not,you know you are the same individual if not the same person :)

[Roger Knights]

Tonite (Sat.) at 10 pm - 2 am Pacific time on talk radio show Coast to Coast AM:

"Ian Punnett is joined by Newsweek senior editor, Lisa Miller, who'll discuss the existence of the afterlife, and the various cultural perceptions of what heaven could possibly be."

[Louise]

Paul, Erich,

Yes, Louis is too well known historically for there to be clear-cut evidence available - it'd be too easy to say "you looked it up!" - not to mention that too much has happened in France to wipe out physical evidence of his time. You're right, it is take it or leave it on that front, and it doesn't bother me - it's inevitable and it's also pretty much how I see similar cases; I'll believe 'em or not, it doesn't matter to me or to the person involved.

The only evidence I have is other people's contact with him (people who don't know either of us, I mean). And I know full well that isn't testable or empirical evidence, either. I guess for me it's a matter of faith, if you like; I started out very doubtful about the possibility of spirit contact, or at least that it could happen to me, and with a lot of wondering and asking and reading I now believe differently. Voila! :)

[Paul]

It amounts to a personal revelation I guess Louise. Something which is satisfactory evidence for you as you experienced it but not necessarily for others who have not.

Since you are not seeking to convince anyone else that your experience is valid, I don't think it matters what our opinion is :). It is possible to discuss a matter without being convinced of its authenticity isn't it?

[Felipe]

I give Louise credit - I happen NOT to believe that she is connecting with a real "Louis", but don't find it hard to believe that one can have a rich, internal dialog over an extended period of time which "feels good" and feels real...and ultimately feels like a genuine connection with the ethereal realms.

I think sharing the experiences takes a little bit of bravery - less so HERE than elsewhere (where eye rolling is more likely than not kept out of the comments, and our keyboards and while I DEFINITELY have been guilty of it at times, I give people credit who are generous with their personal experiences)

Speaking for myself only....but I'm guessing some others agree, I think what is off-putting is the certitude, and the blase' sort of breeziness that some convey their extraordinary experiences. I happen to enjoy Sandy's contributions as well - but think they are FAR more outlandish - and far less likely to be accurately represented as they truly happen- than conversations with spirit.

(i.e. - if machines are moving - light bulbs bursting - if anger or acrimony causes enviormental disharmony and disturbance to the degree shared herein - PROVE it - PERIOD.

Why? It would probably make her the most profoundly gifted purveyor of PK abilities anyone has ever seen - and if it's true - I think you have to be willing to show it - rather than tell it. (not little videos with cloak and dagger masking and things that maybe be moving on their own....may be not)

I DO agree with the K. Augustines and Carl Sagan's of the world when it comes to this sort of thing - talk is cheap - and extraordinary claims should be backed UP with some sort of proof to be considered credible - or even shared routinely - Period.

(otherwise they appear to be "full of sound and fury - signifying nothing" - and are eye roll material through and through)

I certainly believe it's possible that Louise and Lou are psychially connected for all eternity...and that Sandy is supernaturally talented in ways she never asked for.....but I think like most who love this blog, we take the off handed "extraordinaries" as evidence of nothing. (other than a good gift of gab - which every great blogs needs..:-)

[Sandy]

Felipe,

In April I participated in a study of pk with a celebrated parapsychologist and a well known neuroscience researcher. As far as I'm concerned, I'm doing what is appropriate in order to contribute to science while protecting the privacy of myself and my family.

I'm not the first or only pk agent to submit to scientific study. I don't think I'm the most talented by a long shot. I did what I could and now it is up to the researchers to get things published.

[Felipe]

Sandy - if the things you've reported here - in the blog comments - have happened as described - i.e. - heavy machinery moving to the point of being dangerous to others - lightbulb's going off when you get angry, and the plethora of other seemingly incredible PK phenomena you've described around your emotional equilibrium at that moment - quite simply, the discussion on all of this stuff would be over forever. (skeptics would have nowhere else to turn....as the golden goose of evidence would be impossible to reasonably explain away)

In MY view - if you are telling the truth - without exagerration or embellishment - you have a gift that would be well worth showing....even just a glimpse - of what you are telling.

My feeling is this: I DO respect your right to privacy - and DO respect your choice to not reveal more evidence to people who read this blog - your blog - and the others you have frequented around the web with the same stories for years.

However - I don't think you can have it both ways - and be credible - i.e. - if you want privacy - I don't think you can make the claims you've made repeatedly - and blog about it personally - and provide little glimmers of demonstrations that are highly cloaked - and shrouded in intentional anonymity. (and still be credible)

That's just my feeling - I know others will find this obnoxious - or unneccessary, BUT - you targeted Louise as not being credible - rolling your eyes at her posts - and thinking she does a dis-service to the community that you identify with. Quite frankly..... I feel the same about yours - only far more strongly - and for far longer. (as I've seen your posts on blogs around the web for several years talking about "the home place" - and what "grandma told me" this morning, etc - and I see no room for your picking on someone else for something you've done yourself with equal aplomb.

If that published material comes back and says you have clearly demonstrated any of the above (not in a maybe, kind of sorta could be something weird happening here kind of way) I'll feel differently....and apologize profusely for getting it wrong in my gut..:-)

[Sandy]

Felipe, I've always said my own experiences were questionable. But I have done what I could to search for answers. If the answer had been that I was schizophrenic, I would have sought the appropriate medical treatment. If I had been told that I was just misinterpreting natural occurrences, I would have been thrilled. I was hoping that the researchers I worked with would give me a simple answer like that. Unfortunately (for me anyway), that wasn't the case.

I personally don't think the results of another pk study are going to convince the skeptical community. The Tina Resch poltergeist case was well documented and Ms Resch was studied by William Roll in a lab setting. Matthew Manning was studied by Brian Josephson. I'm not the first pk agent to be tested in a lab. It's no different than the many studies on psi functioning that are pretty much marginalised and ignored by mainstream science.

I think it is important to keep looking for answers. I've participated in one NDE study, a pk study and I continue to log my experiences for researchers. What have you done lately to contribute to science, Felipe?

[Felipe]

Sandy - I haven't done anything to contribute to science.

But I don't believe you have either..:-)

You play the "I don't know what's really happening here" card all the time.....while claiming outrageously impressive.... sometimes outright unprecedented things are happening.

You mentioned in a previous comment that when a DOCTOR you were seeing was skeptical.....you proved your PK right there, on the spot. (I'd have to dig up the post to remember what you "moved" - but it's here in the comments, somewhere)

When your husband gets you upset....you are worried about heavy objects hurtling across the room....machinery moving that could hurt people, etc.

That's NOT to be confused with a psychological disorder - or even close....so the woe is me - I don't understand it - but damn if another CRAZY a*s thing didn't happen today, doesn't ring true for me. It feels forced...and in my neighborhood - fugazi to boot.

If EXTERNAL stuff is happening, Sandy - as you report that it is - in other words - if James Friggin' Randi is sitting in front of you - LIKE the doctor you had to impress with your PK - and you MOVED the chandelier - or the WASHING machine - or the lawn mower - or the contents of the desk from a distance.....guess what? There ain't any room to argue.

My problem - to be honest, is only in your personal attack on Louise.

Why? Because years ago, before anyone here probably remembers - you decided to quit another popular paranormal forum - when members publically called your contributions "CREEPY". (the repetitive, folksy, grandma told me this morning stuff, the "I miss my home place", etc, etc)

I'm suprised you would do the same thing to someone else - after that seemed to really hurt your feelings - as I'm sure what you wrote hurt Louise's as well.

That's it - I won't say anything else negative again after this- I understand where you're coming from - wish you luck with your scientific contribution.....I just don't believe you are being 100% honest with your experiences - or your intentions.

[Michael Prescott]

My stars, this blog has certainly gotten confrontational lately.

Can't we all just get along?

I can't say I fully understand Felipe's position when he says to Sandy, "I haven't done anything to contribute to science. But I don't believe you have either..:-)"

Sandy has already said she participated in a PK experiment that is going to be written up in a journal. That sounds like "contributing to science." She has told me some details of this experiment and the names of the investigators (both prominent in their fields). Of course I wasn't there, but it sounds pretty solid to me.

I also think Felipe is mistaken when he says that Sandy's reported phenomena are unprecedented. Most of the activity sounds like fairly familiar poltergeist phenomena.

How exactly can these phenomena be proven? A video record proves nothing, since videos can be faked. Eyewitness accounts can always be questioned. A live performance on TV can be chalked up to stage magic. The most meticulously designed experiment by parapsychologists can be disputed on almost any grounds, or simply ignored as more "woo-woo." Even if a prominent skeptic said he vouched for the phenomena, most other skeptics probably wouldn't believe him; they would just assume he had been fooled!

For the record, I find both Sandy's and Louise's comments on this blog very interesting, and hope they continue to post here.

Someone said - about Louise, I think - that her comments are the kind that allow skeptics to "have a field day." But I think it's a mistake to worry about skeptical field days. Why does it matter so much what other people think? Let them have their field days. There is no need to censor ourselves in the mistaken hope that skeptics will think better of us. They won't.

[Sandy]

Felipe, your are misrepresenting much of what I've written about. And which forum did I quit? I had an issue in a forum with an individual who sent me a threatening email (in addition to calling me creepy). That individual was also making posts about getting a gun and behaving in ways that suggested that she was having an emotional breakdown. She seemed like a deeply disturbed person and was removed from the forum. I resumed posting there after the situation had been resolved.

Louise can take care of herself. She isn't always so gentle with the feelings of others herself. I actually really like Louise, but she does bug me at times. Obviously I bug you too.

I do get my feelings hurt, even in this forum. I've tried to be honest. But I'm not about to expose myself to one of Randi's circuses to make you happy. That isn't science anyway.

If I've offended/annoyed/bugged people in this forum by mentioning my experiences, that's easily remedied. I won't mention them here in future. I can't go back and delete all the past material, so you'll have to tolerate what is already there.

I was honest in my opinion about Louise. I have written about my experiences honestly. I can't prove anything anonymously on the internet, but that goes for much of what is expressed by the various individuals in the forum. I never questioned Louise's honesty in regards to her experiences. I took issue with the fact that she isn't interested in trying to test these experiences and find out what they really are.

[Felipe]

"Louise is my worst nightmare. Someone quick to dismiss other's experiences and dispute scientific evidence with gut reactions rather than logic while at the same time putting forward some very fanciful sounding experiences of her own. In other words, she comes across as a flake."

Sandy - No need to stop sharing ANYTHING to appease me - obviously lots and lots of people enjoy reading your experiences and enjoy your point of view, and would like to continue.

I was pretty much just reacting to the above - and being equally as honest with my feelings, as you were with yours..:-)

As before - I won't add to the acrimony any further - I apologize if it was insensitive - in reading it over now, I didn't mean to be quite so impolite.

(and I'm not a fan of Randi either - that was just a reference to the stereotypical sketpic for illustrative purposes only:-)

[Sandy]

Felipe, my big concern is that you were misrepresenting things I have written. For instance, my family doctor was not skeptical about pk, she didn't have a clue about what pk was. I set up a pk wheel on her desk and showed her. The subject came up because I wanted her to forward some of my medical records to researchers. She, like most family doctors, was unfamiliar with pk and parapsychology.

If you are going to be critical of my past posts, at least have the common decency to be accurate in regards to what you are complaining about.

[Zerdini]

An interesting exchange of views!

I enjoyed reading them as I enjoyed reading other experiences whether I agreed with them or not.

[Sandy]

I'm not really sure I would call it interesting. Confrontational is more like it. If someone doesn't like my posts, I'm OK with that. But to make things up about me and call me a liar is inappropriate. I don't care how many smiley faces are added into the text.

[Bruce Siegel]

Sandy, every time I think of you, I think of Judith Orloff and her book Second Sight. Do you know it? (Forgive me if I've already recommended it to you.)

As a teenager, Orloff was having a difficult time making sense of her life until she met up with the formidable researcher Thelma Moss, and began to participate in a variety of experiments at Moss's parapsychology lab at UCLA. The lab became a second home to Orloff, and helped turn her life around.

What's so interesting is that Orloff shifted paradigms, so to speak, several times. As a young girl, she had no doubt of her psychic abilities until her mother, in effect, made her shut them down to become a more "normal" person.

As a teenager, with Moss's help, she re-discovered her abilities, but then, as a young woman, wandered away once again from her psychic "roots" to fit into the materialistic worldview required by her medical studies and internship.

Then, soon after she began practicing as a psychotherapist, an event with a patient—she dreamed of this woman's impending suicide but sadly ignore her intuition—forced her to come to terms with her abilities and to begin to use them to help her patients.

A warm and intelligent book!

[Bruce Siegel]

Oh—I forgot another parallel with you: Orloff had an NDE.

[Sandy]

Bruce, I don't think you've mentioned Judith Orloff to me before. Thank you. I'll add her book to my ever growing reading list.

[Zerdini]

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

Translated as:

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!

Robert Burns was born on 25 January 1759
He died on 21 July 1796 aged just 37

[Erich]

"Yes, Louis is too well known historically for there to be clear-cut evidence available - it'd be too easy to say "you looked it up!" - not to mention that too much has happened in France to wipe out physical evidence of his time."

Louise, I am getting the impression that you're implying that Louis was a King of France? Why not just say so, if this is the case?

Also, you have stated that Louis communicates with you regarding illnesses and/or other issues effecting people that you meet. I find this fascinating.

I have never had a passed over human spirit communicate this sort of information on demand. I have certainly read many accounts of mediums and random occurences involving regular people and much of the evidence suggests that the information coming from the spirits is real, accurate and of paranormal origin.

I have received a communication from a deceased family member about her state in the afterlife. I have also had communications from (higher ?) intelligences about current and future events - that proved accurate - while under the influence of mushrooms and while in deep meditative states, but otherwise sober.

The former can never be verified except that other members of my family received similar communication at the same time and we compared notes and found the message to be the same. The later I have given considerable thought to and, after eliminating all events that could possibly be the result of chance, subconscious cues and that sort of thing, am left with several experiences that defy normal explanation. So I am convinced that psychic phenonema are real.

However, note that I have attempted to apply a scientific rigor to my experiences before accepting them as genuine.

Also, I don't think that, just because I have had some genuine experiences that I know what it's all about. I have just a sense and I always qualify what I say by stating that what I am expressing is just my sense of things based on what I have experienced, what I have read and a healthy dose of good old fashioned logical thinking.

To be honest, I am always skeptical at first when someone says they communicate with deceased spirits; especially when these spirits were once famous people on earth. My reaction is always that if these communications, whether objectively "real" or not makes a person happy, then good on that person. But, if the person continues to assert that based on these communications they are in a position to offer an opinion about spiritual matters, then I start to want some proof that what the person claims to be experiencing is, indeed, objectively real.

So, all I am saying is that, if Louis is real and he can provide information about conditions effecting other people, then I would be interested in some proof. If he could tell you something about me (or some other honest broker on this site) that is both specific and detailed I would love to see that because that would be convincing evidence that would be helpful to me in my quest as well as everyone else here.

[.]

Aye, he was no-bad for a Scot.

[Zerdini]

It was the content of the quote from the poem that was apposite to what had gone before!

[dmduncan]

"If he could tell you something about me (or some other honest broker on this site) that is both specific and detailed I would love to see that because that would be convincing evidence that would be helpful to me in my quest as well as everyone else here."

I think that's a good idea.

[Erich]

.....and, in fairness, given the apparent controversial subject of the mushrooms and skepticism regarding their ability to induce something better than mere hallucinations in users, I would be willing to ingest some mushrooms - later in the summer when they are in season, perhaps mid-July - and attempt the same as what I am asking of Louise/louis.

[Michael Prescott]

I'm not comfortable with people offering to get high to prove anything in connection with this blog, especially when it involves illegal and possibly dangerous substances. For the record, I strongly discourage any unsupervised experimentation with mind-altering drugs.

At this point I regret posting anything about psychedelics, and though I'm currently reading Rick Strassman's book on DMT, I don't intend to blog on this subject again.

Ever.

[Roger Knights]

@MP: The topic does tend to become a dog-wagging tail.

[Roger Knights]

PS: There's a sophisticated 1992 book by philosopher Douglas Husak on contentious topics treated here, Drugs and Rights

[Roger Knights]

PPS: However, Husak's book poses the debate as between the state or community and the individual, and comes down on the side of the individual. I think that's a false dilemma. I think there is only one human right, the right to say 'we.' I.e., the right to find or found a congenial politico/social entity, or the right to have a space to do ones thing. This finesses all the fantastic problems involved the rights of man vs. men. There is and can be no correct solution to any of those issues, since they are so tinged with subjectivity. And even if there were an objectively correct solution, huge fractions of the populace and the political class would not and psychologically could not accept it.

The only legitimate state is an umbrella state under which 100 flowers -- i.e., voluntarily chosen jurisdictions -- can bloom, each in its own space. This is in accord with America's roots, which were not in statism or individualism, but in "local area communitarianism" -- a communitarianism that could be individualistic in practice. See the wonderful book, The Myth of American Individualism

Under such an umbrella, intractable problems would sort themselves out, and peace, progress, prosperity, liberty, order, justice and hilarity would prevail. And tourism – America’s patchwork quilt would pack a lot of variety into a visit.

[Roger Knights]

PPPS: While we're at it, let's adopt a new flag, a replica of Betsy Ross's patchwork quilt.

[Erich]

"I'm not comfortable with people offering to get high to prove anything in connection with this blog, especially when it involves illegal and possibly dangerous substances..........."

OK. Bad idea.....very bad idea...... I was just trying to be fair given my ask of Louise. I got carried away with the spirit of fairness and overlooked other considerations. I said I would be "willing to", but, given your strong and unambiguous objection, which I can completely appreciate, I absolutely won't.

Though I, no doubt, will ingest mushrooms this summer, as I do most summers, for other purposes.

[Ben]

"I think there is only one human right, the right to say 'we.'.......And even if there were an objectively correct solution, huge fractions of the populace and the political class would not and psychologically could not accept it."

What a wonderful way of describing the human dilemma, Roger.

"Though I, no doubt, will ingest mushrooms this summer, as I do most summers, for other purposes."

You do well to respect MP's wishes, Erich, but if you write up your experiences, I'm sure it would be an interesting read. (I can't quite figure why you link to CNN, though.)

[dmduncan]

America's "roots" are in societies without government, a possibility that flummoxed the Europeans until they had seen it for themselves. They were convinced, along Hobbesian thinking, that we needed government so that people did not kill each other, and were puzzled about why Native American societies had very little crime without any government, which crime is what they had assumed would be were there no government to prevent it. Yet Native Americans lived in societies without governments with less crime than existed in European societies WITH governments.

I'm tired of the thinking of Europe. I'm utterly sick of its old bad ideas still ruining things today. Europe didn't know what was best for "humanity" then, and it doesn't know what's best for "humanity" today.

Also, I would like to know what "human rights" are. What rights does a man get by being human that he hasn't by being an individual? And what is the advantage to speaking of human rights — to speaking of people as a collective — instead of speaking of rights as things we each individually possess?

I am not a group. If I eat food when you are hungry, YOUR belly does not get full. Mine does.

Individuals exist IN society, just as they did in the nomadic Indian tribes who recognized personal property and individual rights. They were societies of individuals (and still are today, by the way; they are fiercely independent WITHIN a social existence), which is also why Chiefs had no power to prevent "war" (and that is a misnomer when applied to what American Indians did given the significance that word has acquired during the past 7 conflicts America has fought; but let's use it anyway) when the warriors were fired up to fight.

I'm very sensitive to ways in which groups of like minded people try to assert dominance over individuals in seemingly harmless ways, and to me, talk of "human rights" is one such way that is done. I don't recognize any "human rights." I recognize the rights we all have in common as individuals living a social existence — and the rights we do NOT have in common; no man has a right to trample on another man's well being; and no man's well being may come at the expense of another man's rights.

[Ben]

"no man has a right to trample on another man's well being; and no man's well being may come at the expense of another man's rights."

Seems good in principle, dmd; can it be applied to our relationship with animals or the environment too, or do you believe we are created lords of all we survey to do with nature as we wish?

One of the differences between western society and traditional societies is that they still have "soul" (genuine involvement in nature), whereas we westerners are alienated from nature, and intellectually think we might overcome this by moving in the direction of "spirit" -complete detachment from nature. I have to say, this seems a dubious ambition to me (and is not what you're saying, of course).

[Michael Prescott]

"...no man has a right to trample on another man's well being; and no man's well being may come at the expense of another man's rights."

How can this possibly work in practice? Suppose I want to open up a shoe store across the street from an existing shoe store. In so doing, I will trample on the well being of my competitor, who will lose some of his customers to new competition.

But perhaps I say, "I don't want to hurt the shoe store owner, so I won't open a competing store." But in that case I trample on the well being of the shoe-buying public, who would benefit from more competition,greater selection, and lower prices.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism claims (and some libertarians agree) that there is no conflict of interest among rational persons. But in fact there are conflicts of interest all the time. If someone wants to open a gas station next door to me, it may be in his interest to do so, but it is in my interest to stop him, since his business will lower my property values. Such examples can be multiplied infinitely.

And as for rights -- well, what are rights except legal guarantees that have developed over a long period of societal evolution, and no doubt will go on developing? There was a time when a citizen's rights included the right to own slaves. There was a time when the right to vote was restricted to property-owning white males. Rights aren't ethereal, unchanging entities like Plato's Forms; they're practical warrants for action, evolving out of court cases, political wrangling, and open revolt (e.g., the Magna Carta was born of a rebellion against the king).

I'm skeptical of arguments grounded in terms like "rights" and "well being," because these terms mean different things to different people. (BTW, the term "reason" or "rationality" is another vague, all-inclusive term that means surprisingly little.)

[dmduncan]

"How can this possibly work in practice? Suppose I want to open up a shoe store across the street from an existing shoe store. In so doing, I will trample on the well being of my competitor, who will lose some of his customers to new competition."

That's not what I mean. As I read more history it seems that the history of capitalism was written by fascists; by companies and individuals who were so rich and powerful and GREEDY that they were able to partner WITH big government to gain favors to help themselves at the expense of their competition AND the people whom the government was supposed to protect from harm; we are watching an example of this very thing happen in the gulf right now. A preliminary report from the investigators reveals a very cozy relationship between BP and the Mineral Management Service, and bad decisions made by both Big Business and Big Government. And THIS is what most people think of as capitalism! It's fascism! THIS is why people associate the "far right" with fascism and capitalism at the same time.

Like Christianity, capitalism has become defined by its WORST exemplars. But the honest mom and pop stores — if you can find any — are also examples of capitalism. Big Business BUYS influence in Washington, creating a conflict of interest in dishonest politicians, who then write laws favorable to Big Business, and which hurt smaller competition. The government has had it's hand meddling in FAVOR of the rich for over a hundred years now, and on a bipartisan basis.

The government should mediate fairly in disputes between people when they occur; but it seems more often than not it has taken the side of Big Business to the detriment of us all.

And gas stations exist on adjacent corners and do well enough to survive, and if one fails, then he has to find something else to do. It's a possibility many of us face right now. The nature of existence is not certain, and if certain benefits are what you want, then you want only what authoritarian regimes can offer until they collapse — and then you may have worse than nothing.

So when I talk about well being, I do not mean personal comfort. Perhaps I should've used a less confusing term. I don't believe a person has a RIGHT to the cash of a passerby who may go to the new shoe store instead of yours. I get to choose. That's liberty.

Another example is that if I live on my own land, should Big Business interests be able to bribe public officials to confiscate it for their own development and compensate me with some other place I don't want to live?

"And as for rights -- well, what are rights except legal guarantees that have developed over a long period of societal evolution, and no doubt will go on developing?"

THAT depends on YOUR beliefs. Are you a positivist who believes that rights are granted to you by the state? Or do you believe in Natural Law instead?

"I'm skeptical of arguments grounded in terms like "rights" and "well being," because these terms mean different things to different people."

Yes, they do mean different things to different people, and that's why we have war.

To quote GK Chesterton:

"...the whole difficulty in our public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would regard as worse maladies..."

Now some people may be entirely comfortable with an authoritarian state. As long as they feel comfortable, it works for them.

But I've seen the lasting effects of what such a government can do and it outrages me. It outrages me no less than what the socialist-capitalists on Wall Street do when they want to socialize their losses but privatize their profits, and the government obliges.

"Seems good in principle, dmd; can it be applied to our relationship with animals or the environment too, or do you believe we are created lords of all we survey to do with nature as we wish?"

The Lakota a have a way of ending all their prayers: Mitakuye oyasin. It translates as "all my relatives." What it means by "relatives" is all living things.

That is my sentiment also.

[Erich]

It's all BS. There is no free market. The market is rigged.

Indeed laws are made by the powerful - or those seeking power - to further enrich themselves. That is their sole pupose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been duped by the lofty rhetoric or loud harangues of politicians.

The world is as uncivilized now as it was 10,000 years ago. The only difference is that now the plundering barbarians use (mostly) lawyers instead of axes and swords.

Same old dog eat dog jungle rules. Nothing will ever change that. Nothing.

Ben, I link to CNN because I can't post here without a URL for some weird reason. CNN's URL was the first one that came to mind. Maybe I should set up a magic mushroom blog and link to that. Some day when I have the time.

[Erich]

"The Lakota a have a way of ending all their prayers: Mitakuye oyasin. It translates as "all my relatives." What it means by "relatives" is all living things.

That is my sentiment also."

Beautiful.

My sentiment too.

But then the Lakota go out and kill a Blackfoot.

[Michael Prescott]

"I link to CNN because I can't post here without a URL for some weird reason."

You could create a fake email address. That's what I do on other people's blogs.

[Roger Knights]

As illustrated above, there is only one unifying principle we can all agree on: YOU'RE the Goober!

Whence it follows: Get Off My Back and Outta My Face!

IOW, A Space for Everyone and Everyone in Their Space. Now they'll have no one to blame for their woes but themselves.

(Hmm ... But maybe that is a bug, not a feature, to most people!)

[Bruce Siegel]

"The world is as uncivilized now as it was 10,000 years ago. The only difference is that now the plundering barbarians use (mostly) lawyers instead of axes and swords."

Erich, I think there's a lot of truth to that, and I often bring up stuff like that when someone says we're better off today because we have less violence, or because we have (as some would argue) dentistry.

However:

"Same old dog eat dog jungle rules. Nothing will ever change that. Nothing."

As much as I enjoy your posts, I would never make a statement like that. I don't mean to say that I'm right and you're wrong, but my own experiences in deeply altered states kept prodding me with this insight: the universe is a system designed to provide us with surprises at every turn.

I love the fact that neither you nor I know what's around the corner. It's why I get up in the morning.

I also think that believing (understanding might be a better word) that change is possible, helps to make it happen.

[dmduncan]

"the universe is a system designed to provide us with surprises at every turn."

I think that must be something like the truth. Despite the doomed attempts by central planners to make it one, we don't live a static existence in a snow globe, which is about the only place that central planning would work. You can't get the nature out of nature.

[Louise]

Greetings all,

Sorry, I've been sick as a dog and not really up to following the blog for a while.

Just to pick a couple of things for direct answers - I'm not saying too much more about Louis here because we're (or I if you prefer, lol) am in the middle of doing a book together. If, fingers crossed, we get it published, it'll all be there.

The one time he commented on someone else was in response to my asking (the lady with the mental illness/drugs/whatever it was). He's not in the habit of passing comment on other people.

Felipe, thank you in general! :) You made a very good point (actually lots) but yes, my stance by now is: I am past the point where "belief" actually defines how I feel about Louis's reality and our contact. BUT if I am wrong, and it is what you aptly described as an internal dialogue, the fact remains that it has brought me joy and contentment I've not had in my life before. That will do me fine!

Now I wish I could remember who mentioned it ages ago, but how many of you have read "The Risen" by Goforth and Gray? A copy awaited me on my first day back at work yesterday (no mystery there, only Amazon, lol) and I've just looked through it and started reading. What intrigues me so far is that it is saying precisely what Louis's been telling me for the last three years. (Not wild about the term "the Risen" myself, sounds either born-again Christian or Stephen King-ish ... )

[Michael Prescott]

The Risen is an interesting book that presents a perspective very similar to the one you've offered, Louise.

August Goforth also has a blog:

http://augustgoforth.blogspot.com/

He was interviewed by Michael Tymn here:

tiny.cc/gev8o

I can't really evaluate the book's claims, but I did find it an intriguing and provocative read.

The term "the Risen" doesn't bother me, but I was a little put off by the author's habit of referring to his cats as his "children"...

[Sandy]

Back to the original topic, I came across this podcast about how peyote is being used to treat addiction as part of traditional healing methods in New Mexico. Dr. Charles Grob, Dr. George Greer, Dr. Matthew Kelley and Dr. Michael Persinger are interviewed in the program.

http://appropriate-entertainment.com/My_Homepage_Files/Download/StonedStraight2.mp3

[Roger Knights]

" but I was a little put off by the author's habit of referring to his cats as his "children""

If you want to read the cat book to end all cat books, check out The Cat Who Went to Paris It contains the memorably understated sentence, "I don't think Norton just has cat-feelings."

[Sandy]

"I don't think Norton just has cat-feelings."

That's too funny!

[Ben]

The link that Michael gave suggests that Goforth is a medium for Gray; so this leads me to ask whether the proper description of both Sandy and Louise's abilities is "mediumistic". Zerdini -you're the expert. Do you think both the ladies are mediums?

[Louise]

I've got The Cat Who Went to Paris, Roger! Love it. Not to mention the photo on the back, where you can see how smothered in fur Peter Gethers's shirt is ... :D

I don't call my cats my children. They'd turn up their kitty noses at one of the staff being so presumptuous.

[Zerdini]

The link that Michael gave suggests that Goforth is a medium for Gray; so this leads me to ask whether the proper description of both Sandy and Louise's abilities is "mediumistic". Zerdini -you're the expert. Do you think both the ladies are mediums?

Both appear to have mediumistic abilities but if you mean mediums like Gladys Osborne Leonard, Leonora Piper, Estelle Roberts, Helen Hughes, Gordon Higginson etc my answer would (with all due respect to the ladies) be 'No'.

I would never claim to be an 'expert' in anything. The definition of expert, which you've no doubt heard, is: An ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure!

[Louise]

PS thanks for the Goforth links, Michael. I saw his site before I got the book, but hadn't looked into it. This'll save me Googling it. :)

It'll be intriguing to read the whole book and see what Louis agrees with, or what gets an "I've no idea" type shrug!

I wouldn't know where to begin to evaluate the book either - it's the closeness of what they say to what I've been hearing that has my whiskers twitching.*

One thing I read tonight was about one's beliefs coming from others' testimony or claims, and that one's own experiences take things beyond "belief" and into "knowledge". I'm guessing he means, in this subject, intuitive knowledge, since it's unprovable (another thing Goforth acknowledges at the start, and as you mentioned earlier, Michael: nobody's going to convince sceptics, so why worry about it?)

Anyway what I'm leading to in that very long sentence is that I'm satisfied, after much doubt, questioning and trying to work it out rationally, with the reality of my experiences. Time for the left-brain response to stop monopolising things! I'm not concerned with proving them (which I couldn't) to anyone else. It starts to feel like being asked to do parlour tricks after a while, though I know that's not the intent of anyone here!

The core of it is that I know I am loved. There isn't much more one can ask for, unless it's cats and chocolate. :)

[Louise]

Oh, Zerdini, just caught your post! No, I don't think of myself as a medium at all. Let's say I'd compare a medium to broadband, and I'm dialup.

[Zerdini]

As Curchill memorably said:

"Dogs look up to you. Cats look down on you. Pigs treat you like equals."

[Zerdini]

*Churchill* not Curchill

[Louise]

LOL! I just heard that quotation the other week, in the film "The Gathering Storm".

Wonder what the pigs would think about that? ;)

[Sandy]

It'll be intriguing to read the whole book and see what Louis agrees with, or what gets an "I've no idea" type shrug!

While it is all nice that you say you don't need answers as to what Louis is, you do base much of your opinion on what Louis has to say. A number of times in this forum you have expressed a dissenting opinion on something based solely on your "experiences". But those experiences are something you are unwilling to question or put through any kind of testing to see if they are actually real or providing you with any kind veridical information.

To me, that just seems silly. Almost like a religion. It brings you comfort, but only as long as you play by the rules and don't ask any questions. I couldn't accept any particular religion on faith either. I think it's important to know what we are basing our opinions on, particularly if we are going to relate them to others in any kind of meaningful way.

It's a much harder path to question these experiences. I could just sit back, listen to my grandma tell me stories and leave it at that. I could ask Grandma for all the answers, but that wouldn't really answer my questions in a meaningful way. And it certainly wouldn't help anyone else find answers.

Zerdini is correct in that I'm not a true medium in the sense of a Mrs Piper or any of the other great historical mediums. That doesn't mean I should just sit back and do nothing about my experiences. There are ways to test these things, to find out if these experiences are real or just happy delusions. I'm not willing to base my life and express opinions based on a fantasy, even a really pleasant one.

[Michael Prescott]

Sandy, you and Louise clearly have different ways of approaching these admittedly ambiguous, mostly subjective phenomena. But I'd ask you to consder something. Louise seems happy and content with her experiences, while you've written that you're profoundly troubled by yours. Is it possible that you're disturbed by your experiences precisely because you struggle against them, wanting some kind of external validation that proves elusive, while Louise is undisturbed because she accepts her experiences at face value?

I recognize there's a danger of being caught up in a delusion. But there's also a downside to refusing to trust your own perceptions. You might want to try a psychological experiment of sorts, and see if *provisionally* accepting your experiences, without seeking explanations or proof, has any effect on how you feel about them. Maybe some of the anxiety they bring on would be dissipated, if this anxiety is caused by resistance and inner conflict.

Just a thought.

[Sandy]

Michael,

I actually feel better about my experiences when I can test them out in a safe environment among trusted individuals.

It's the isolation of not feeling safe enough to be open that causes so much anxiety. I also have a history of getting very negative feedback regarding psi experiences. I'm not referring to people not believing me. I'm referring to people who do believe me and who perceive unusual abilities as bad.

I just think the source of information is important. On one hand, Louise tells us that she won't be referring to Louis anymore because she is writing a book about him and all the juicy details should be left to that. I guess that is one way to evade anyone asking to test out her experiences. But now that she figures the idea of testing is off the table, well, Louis is back!

One of the reasons that there is so much negative feedback in regards to anything connected to psi functioning is that there are so many people like Louise who won't look too closely at these experiences because that might ruin all the fun.

I happen to think that discovery and scientific investigation is lots of fun. Delusional thinking isn't so high on my list of entertainment priorities.

[Paul]

A small point but Louise said she wouldn't refer to Louis any more - she didn't say she wouldn't answer questions about him. I don't think Louise is under an obligation (as far as her postings here are concerned anyway) to have anything tested by anyone unless she wants to. We are free to reject another persons opinions about anything subjective if we wish, or we can reserve judgement.

I can see why it is important to find some objective validation of your own experiences but I think both approaches are perfectly valid. While Louise's experiences remain subjective they are probably of limited or no value to others, if not to her.

On the other hand, if you can gain some objective evidence of the phenomena you are experiencing this could be of immense value to others, and to yourself.

[Sandy]

Michael,

When I reported seeing a ghost named Arthur a while back, you were quick to suggest testing what I was experiencing. I didn't come up with a lame excuse about Arthur to avoid your test. I just tried my best. You didn't ask me to do anything that would threaten my well being or privacy, so I said OK.

As it turned out, I think my private email to you with Arthur's response was a better answer to your question than what I felt comfortable posting in your blog. Arthur used a personal example to illustrate his meaning in a timely fashion. The only problem was that I didn't interpret the example as well as I could have. But that's OK, it was fun to try it, even with mixed results.

It could have been a lucky but not perfect guess on my part, I could have really been talking to a dead guy, or I could have picked up the information from you psychically. There are probably other possibilities as well.

The thing is, I don't quote Arthur as an authority on anything, even things of a spiritual nature. I think my experiences are interesting mainly in the way that they can be considered in the larger scheme of things regarding anomalous experiences.

When people ask me about my perceptions of these experiences, I try to be honest and as clear as I can. If I can't answer a question, I say so. I don't make up excuses and justify it by saying it real to me, so what you think doesn't count.

I'm not perfect in my methods, but I'm still trying to learn about my experiences. I guess what I don't understand is the fact that you were looking for whatever evidence I was willing to share with you, but you are quick to give Louise a free pass. When someone claims that a possibly imaginary entity is an authority on spiritual matters, I don't think they should be given a free pass.

[Michael Prescott]

"I guess what I don't understand is the fact that you were looking for whatever evidence I was willing to share with you, but you are quick to give Louise a free pass."

I haven't given Louise a free pass. I'm not saying her communications with "Louis" are genuine. I'm not treating her, or "Louis," as any kind of authority.

It does seem to me that she is happier about her experiences than you are about yours, and perhaps this means she's doing something right.

As for Arthur, I asked you about him because you seemed interested in trying to establish his objective reality. I don't think you're obligated to test these things, but it seemed to me that you wanted to.

An essay of some relevance here might be William James' classic, "The Will to Believe," which can be read at this link:

tiny.cc/5cvrj

[Louise]

Sandy, I'm not out to prove anything to anyone, nor start a religion, nor go into battle for psi or anything else. Your take on your experiences, your desire to see them tested, is your way, and that's fine. I don't believe mine can be tested, and I have asked plenty of questions both of Louis and of people right here on earth, about this. I'm not sure why you're so worried by this, unless it's just too far from your comfort zone. As I've already said, I have had contact from him via other people who did provide specifics - what he looks like, what he was doing at the moment - things that cold reading would not supply, even if they'd been fishing for info, which they didn't. I've been through the questioning, doubting and trying to analyse stage, as I've said here more than once. I've had my questions and mistrust of myself and fears that it might not be him answered. I'm now at the acceptance stage, and happy, peaceful and joyous with it.

I don't think Michael or anyone else is giving me a free pass. Mostly they don't believe (I think) that Louis is a genuine person, rather than a part of my mind. Wouldn't the suggestion that you find a way to test Arthur's presence arise from people here knowing you are happy to do such things, because you do take part in them?

I'm sorry that all this seems to disturb you, but the fact is that my life is what it is, it's taken a turn for the better I would not have credited a few years ago, and that's the end of the matter. I'm beginning to wonder if it will be worth while posting here, if this is going to be something you feel the need to keep worrying at. Does it really bother you so much that my experiences are, now, for me, enough in themselves? Does it really matter so much? It's almost like "you've got it too easy." I can only say what Louis said to me years ago - "Why should everything true be difficult?" - which to my delight I just found echoed in The Risen: "This kind of sensing [of spirits] may sound so simple as to make one think it's not real. But why make it any more complex than necessary?" (p. 122)

Best wishes,
Louise

[Sandy]

Louise, I wouldn't have bothered to continue along these lines, but you and others keep bringing the topic back up. The first thing you did upon your return was thank Filipe for defending you. His defence of you included fabricating lies and misrepresenting my situation. I felt compelled to respond to the things he had posted considering how inappropriately he had acted. You seem compelled to keep returning to this topic. I see no reason that I shouldn't respond.

I have no problem with you enjoying your experiences. I'm just saying that people who claim contact with spirits with no interest in scientific validation or investigation come across as less than sensible. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

It does hit close to home because it seems like there are two groups of people out there, skeptics and believers. I can't be a skeptic because I've had experiences that I can't deny. But I'm not a believer because that isn't enough for me. I want to be a scientist. That seems to mean hanging out on that very lonely, very tenuous middle ground.

[Erich]

Actually, it is precisely because Sandy's experiences trouble her that I tend to believe there is something real about them.

Caveat being that if she also exhibited signs of mental disorganization and incoherence suggesting psychosis, I would then say that she is troubled because she is mentally ill. However, nothing about her communications here suggests mental illness.

People that claim to have found some degree of "enlightment" or other paranormal phenomena that leaves them constantly blissfully happy are, in my observations, selling something. They are, typically, frauds and/or clinically delusional.

Too many seekers want to believe in some ultimate happy organization to the universe. This is, IMO, ego based infantilism. I'll say it again, I don't see where or how this could be true. I believe it doesn't exist. Infinity is a deep and potentially treacherous place. Planes of ecstacy exist right along side of hells. One can teater into either with the nudge of a breeze.

Experiencing paranormal events, while being otherwise "sane", places one outside the flock. This alone is enough to cause anxiety and depression. And this is aside from the content of those experiences. It is natural for an otherwise socially well adjusted person to want to seek social validation that the experiences are real and that one is "sane"; that one is "OK". I can't imagine a socially integrated person non-chalantly accepting and being happy that s/he has regular conversations with ghosts. Can you? Really?

And then there is the content of these paranormal communications. It ain't all about light and angels, if it's real. How does one process it? How does one share it as one does with normal life issues? With whom would one share it? The sense of isolation can be intense.

Finally, MP, you scoff (albeit subtly) at my assertion that the mushrooms can connect one to a realm of wisdom and knowledge. In fact, you don't want to discuss the topic again, ever. You consider the whole thing dangerous and low, as illustrated by the morality play of the outlier idiot who consumed mushrooms and slaughtered a friend.

But you have no problem with people who claim to communicate with long deceased people as long as it makes them happy. How come no morality play about various individuals and cults that have committed heinous acts based on alleged communications from the spirit world? there are many examples you know.

Mere prejudice on your part.

Stay strong Sandy. Be a warrior. The trick is to balance the pain of being a human with the wonder of being a human.

[Louise]

Sandy, one can be a sceptic about some things and believe in others, no question! I certainly fit that category. On the other hand, I don't believe that science can answer everything, or that everything is so tied to the material plane that empirical evidence is either obtainable or necessary. Nor do I think everything should be judged purely from that left-brain sort of stance. It's too much like atheists who decry anyone who thinks outside the materialist-reductionist box, which seems just as lacking in sense to me in its own way.

If you hadn't noticed, a lot of other people commented about the topic while I was away. Nor do I think Felipe lied about anything, nor did his reading of your posts (you called me a flake and your worst nightmare, remember?) seem at all out. You've complained because I believe what I believe, and complained when I've said I don't believe in things like ghosts in computers or reincarnation. A tad ironic, I'd call that. If you're trying to put me off posting here, you're doing a very good job.

[Sandy]

Thanks, Erich. I appreciate the back up.

I have to admit that I have my own long standing prejudices about drugs, even though the literature suggests that an ethanol high is far more impairing than a marijuana buzz. Michael Persinger makes some interesting points on psychotropic drugs in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4292093832329014323#

[Sandy]

Louise, I didn't make up lies about you. I said you sounded like a flake, that's my opinion. That isn't the same as saying you were doing something that you hadn't done.

Felipe made references to things that hadn't occurred. He was fabricating stories. Lying. Perhaps he has a poor memory or has mixed me up with someone else. But he wasn't accurate and that offended me.

[Sandy]

People that claim to have found some degree of "enlightment" or other paranormal phenomena that leaves them constantly blissfully happy are, in my observations, selling something.

Like a book?

[Louise]

Charming. I have never claimed to be "constantly blissfully happy". My life overall is peaceful and touched with joy.

As for the book, yes, I am hoping to finish and sell it. It took a lot of encouragement from friends to get started on it at all.

Frankly, Sandy, everything I read from you now, relating to me, comes across as sour and miserable, not at all open-minded but cynical and downright unpleasant. First it's flakey (which implies a lot more than you seem to admit), now I'm seemingly just out to make a buck. Three years of contact and a couple of months of writing - I don't think so!

My respect for you is fast disappearing as you make it clearer with every post that this is a waste of time, a drain on my energy that I can live without. Be happy in your own life, and stop sneering at mine.

[Sandy]

Louise, your take on me as sneering at your life is inaccurate. I'm answering your posts. You keep directing posts at me, and I keep answering them. I haven't lied or misrepresented anything you have said. I'm just stating opinions. Honest ones.

[Louise]

No, you're making personal attacks.

[Michael Prescott]

"I can't imagine a socially integrated person non-chalantly accepting and being happy that s/he has regular conversations with ghosts. Can you? Really?"

Emanuel Swedenborg had no problem pursuing his visionary experiences while continuing to function at a high level in science, politics, and society.

Victor Hugo drew creative inspiration from seances (conducted with a planchette), and doesn't seem to have suffered in terms of his literary output or personal life.

Some contemporary mediums seem to have little trouble accepting their gift. The book Guided by Spirit, by Charles and Penelope Emmons, provides one example.

So yes, I think it's possible to have these experiences without becoming socially incapacitated or intellectually impaired.

"Too many seekers want to believe in some ultimate happy organization to the universe. This is, IMO, ego based infantilism. I'll say it again, I don't see where or how this could be true. I believe it doesn't exist."

I think that's the mushrooms talking. Hallucinatory experiences that leave you in such a dark place are doing you more harm than good, IMO.

Sandy, I don't see what Louise has said that would make you so angry. It seems to me that Louise has been generally cordial to you, though she is clearly losing patience now.

Perhaps it would be best if the two of you just agreed to disagree?

[Sandy]

sour and miserable, not at all open-minded but cynical and downright unpleasant

You have no problem with dealing harshly with others. I only called you flaky.

I thought the book comment was humorous. I didn't say it had anything to do with you, that was your take on things. You seem to be attributing a lot of subtext to whatever I post. I never defined flaky, but this is how http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaky defines it:

1. Made of or resembling flakes.
2. Forming or tending to form flakes or thin, crisp fragments
3. Slang Somewhat eccentric; odd

That's no worse that being called miserable. You have a right to your opinion about me. But don't expect me not to answer you back. (I did think the question about the book was funny, BTW.)

[Sandy]

I think that's the mushrooms talking. Hallucinatory experiences that leave you in such a dark place are doing you more harm than good, IMO.

That's a little like someone suggesting that since you partake of alcohol that your opinions aren't valid. If you were intoxicated and your writing reflected an inability to function due to alcohol impairment, that would be one thing. But if you were cogent (as Erich seems to be), that doesn't seem to be a valid criticism.

I'm not comfortable with illegal drug use either, but I'm not sure all of the regulations are justified. There are legitimate medicinal uses for some drugs that are not made legal because of prejudice towards certain drugs and not others. There are medical uses for marijuana that seem quite valid and low in terms of risk, but it's still illegal to use medicinally in many places. It's OK to get drunk, which has some major health risks. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome comes to mind. Interestingly enough, according to Michael Persinger, the literature suggests that can be treated successfully with marijuana.

[Zerdini]

Perhaps it would be best if the two of you just agreed to disagree?

Excellent point.

By all means criticise the subject content but not the writer. Personal attacks achieve nothing.

[Michael Prescott]

"That's a little like someone suggesting that since you partake of alcohol that your opinions aren't valid."

No, I mean that Erich appears to have developed his nihilistic philosophy as a result of using mushrooms. His psychedelic trips are, apparently, what convinced him that the universe is malevolent and life is a dark and ugly thing.

One of the better pieces of advice in the New Testament is, "You shall know them by their fruits." If the fruit of experimentation with psychoactive chemicals is a bleak, nightmarish worldview, then this would be a good reason to avoid such experimentation, in my opinion.

However, I know I'm never going to convince the pro-psychedelic people, so to follow the advice I gave Louise and Sandy, I think we will have to agree to disagree.