Double trouble

Lately I've been reading, or trying to read, a book by Peter Novak called The Lost Secret of Death. I find the book very hard to get into, mainly because I don't find its central thesis convincing.

Essentially, Novak argues that the human soul divides at death, splitting into a conscious and an unconscious part, which forever after remain separate. He claims that this Binary Soul Doctrine can reconcile the discrepancies in afterlife evidence -- for example, the ongoing debate between those who believe the soul dwells permanently in heaven or hell, and those who believe in reincarnation. According to Novak, the unconscious mind occupies a self-made heaven or hell forever, while the conscious mind reincarnates.

There is certainly something intriguing about the notion that the apparently contradictory accounts of our postmortem destiny can be harmonized, and it is interesting that many religious and mystical traditions do teach a duality of the soul. Novak points to the ancient Egyptian doctrine of the ka and the ba, the Gnostic differentiation between the pneuma and the psyche, and the uhane and unihipili of the Huna (native Hawaiian) religion, among others. Some of his examples can be questioned, but it does seem clear that the Binary Soul Doctrine, in some form, can be found in other cultures.

The difficulty, for me at least, lies in applying the theory to the details of afterlife evidence. It seems to me that the Binary Soul Doctrine, at least as Novak presents it, does not really fit the evidence all that well.

Remember that, according to this view, it is the unconscious mind that dwells in heaven or hell, while the conscious mind -- stripped of all earthly memories -- reincarnates. Now look at how Novak describes what he calls "the afterlife experience of the unconscious mind":

Without the conscious mind, the unconscious would no longer have any free will. It wouldn't be able to change its mind, make any new decisions, or be creative, original, or spontaneous in any way. But since the unconscious would now be cut off from its rational intellect as well, it would never realize it was not the same person. Unable to use reason or logic, unable to arrive at any new conclusions or make any new decisions, it would remain convinced that it was still the same person it had been prior to the division, and would never notice that anything had changed or that anything was missing.

Without free will, the unconscious would be unable to move in any way.... Cut off from the input of the physical body and conscious mind, cut off, in effect, from all it had known outside itself, from all objective reality and external stimuli, it would turn its attention inward. There, it would rediscover everything the person had stashed away and forgotten inside his unconscious over the course of his life...

Collapsing into itself, an unconscious mind that had become detached from its conscious half would become preoccupied with redigesting its own memories. Running on automatic, the unconscious would review and re-experience its memories, feelings, and self-judgments, and since the unconscious is automatically responsive and emotional in nature, it would also be expected to react emotionally to them...

Lacking any objective, external window into the "real world," this inner soul-searching would be the unconscious's entire experience. Since it would be cut off from all external input, the unconscious would remain in this dream-state permanently, and 100 percent of its experience would derive from its memories and dream-reactions to them. With no external input possible, and no decision-making ability available to make changes, this process would continue without interruption, compounding upon itself. [pp. 46,47]

Novak believes that this description encompasses the experience of discarnate souls in heaven or hell. But then presumably this means that mediumistic communications are coming from the unconscious mind of the departed person. Of course, it is possible to simply dismiss all mediumistic evidence as flawed, but I'm not prepared to do that, so in order for Novak's theory to work for me, it has to fit the testimony that comes through mediums (or at least the better-tested and more reliable ones).

And here's the rub. Much of the best mediumistic evidence does not jibe with Novak's account. The communicators who spoke through mediums like Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborne Leonard, and Eileen Garrett do not seem to have lost their rational faculty, their intellectual abilities, or their free will. It might be argued that some of them appeared to have diminished capacities -- to be confused or inarticulate -- but others seemed to have full possession of all their faculties. The famous cross correspondences, which involved bits and pieces of elaborate messages communicated in jigsaw-puzzle fashion to a variety of mediums over an extended period of time, showed not only considerable ingenuity on the part of the communicators, but also creativity and free will, since the plan appears to have been cooked up on "the other side." The equally famous book and newspaper tests, which Charles Drayton Thomas conducted with Mrs. Leonard, also showed an active, probing intelligence on the part of the communicator, and again, the scheme appears to have been devised by the discarnates themselves. In the R-101 case, the principal communicator ("Irwin") retained his extensive knowledge of aerodynamics and engineering and was able to discuss these subjects in detail with an experienced military aviator, even making suggestions for improvements in the design of a dirigible that had crashed on its maiden flight.

Examples could be multiplied many times. A less well-known case is that of the high-quality chess match played between a living grandmaster and, apparently, a deceased grandmaster communicating through a medium. The communicator showed considerable inventiveness in his strategy and tactics -- not what we would expect from an unconscious mind lacking free will, rational intellect, logical analysis, or creativity.

Moreover, the very existence of mediumistic communications (if we take them as genuine) would appear to show that the discarnate person is not "cut off from all external input... from all objective reality and external stimuli." The communicator evidently is able to respond to external input, at least through the intermediary of the medium, inasmuch as he or she will answer questions and engage in dialogue. Communicators often say that they have been watching over their loved ones and will even describe what their loved ones have been doing and thinking. They will sometimes warn a loved one about an impending danger. All of this suggests that they are not entirely and irreparably cut off from what we call objective reality.

There is another problem with Novak's account, as well, and it involves the other side of the coin -- reincarnation. As he tells it, only the conscious mind reincarnates, and this mind has shed all of its memories, to become essentially a blank slate. Novak writes:

Without the unconscious's subjective, emotional perspective, the conscious mind would not feel related or connected to its environment in any way. It would feel completely isolated and uninvolved. In fact, without the unconscious, it would not experience any feeling or emotion whatsoever. Objective to the end, the conscious would then just be a bodiless, identityless, emotionless, historyless, uncomprehending point of pure, living awareness.

However, while the conscious would lose its memory if separated from the subconscious, it would still have free will, and so would remain free to make new choices and thereby move on to new experiences, never knowing or suspecting that any previous life had ever occurred. In time, such an amnesiac conscious spirit could be expected to drift innocently into new experiences, from which it would slowly build up a new sense of identity. Free as a lark, it would be likely to repeat this reincarnation-like pattern indefinitely... [pp. 44, 45]

If this is true, a rather obvious question must be asked: How is it that anyone ever claims to have memories of past lives?

If the only thing that reincarnates is a conscious mind with absolutely no memory of any previous incarnation, how is it that young children will spontaneously remember a previous lifetime, or people under hypnosis will remember a series of lifetimes? Wouldn't this information be inaccessible to the reincarnated conscious mind, which has discarded all memory of its prior existences?

In a later chapter, Novak speculates that past life regression can somehow retrieve the cast-off, forgotten unconscious mind, or at least parts of it, effecting a partial repair job. But it's not clear how this would work if the two parts have been sundered so completely. It's also unclear how this would relate to the spontaneous recollections of children, which arguably are stronger evidence for reincarnation than the regression cases.

Novak also summarizes the findings of regression therapists who take their clients to a "life between lives":  

Meanwhile, the other half of the mind of the deceased, the half these [unconscious] "fragments" lack and so dearly need, the [conscious] objective mind, seems to spend its time in between lives floating blissfully alone in a black nothingness, unperturbed by memory or emotion, oblivious to the ongoing distress of its other half. [p. 107]

This description does not match what I've read of "life between lives" therapy, which usually paints a quite different picture -- a picture of the soul reviewing its accomplishments and mistakes in the life just ended, resting up for a new adventure, and then choosing a new life and a new learning opportunity. I could chalk this up to a lack of information on Novak's part, except that on page 104, he makes references to the books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls by hypnotherapist Michael Newton. If he has read these books, he must know that Newton's patients do not depict the life between lives as "a black nothingness," but rather as an eventful interval of past-life review and next-life planning in the company of one's soul mates and guides.

Since I haven't read all of The Lost Secret of Death, I'm in no position to render any final opinion on it. But from what I have read, Novak's thesis, while intriguing, doesn't seem to fulfill its promise of reconciling the available evidence. Skipping ahead, I notice that the last part of the book detours rather oddly into something akin to Christian apologetics, in which the mission of Jesus on earth is seen as reuniting our divided souls (or something like that). I can't say that this conclusion gives me great confidence in the validity of Novak's other arguments.

But some of the ideas are interesting, and your assessment may differ. As for me, I may just move on to another book.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, maybe...

　

Comments

[Tony M]

Reminds me of a book that Colin Wilson discusses in several places, Max Freedom Long's The Secret Science Behind Miracles, which was a study of the Huna religion. In brief, human's have three souls (or minds or spirits). The low self is selfish and ignorant and can become a low spirit like a poltergeist. The higher self is the source of paranormal knowledge and guidance. The middle self is the what we typically think of as our "self".

Wilson spins this model into a reasonably plausible explanation for haunting, poltergeists, medium communications, etc. I don't necessarily by it, but the way he uses the model meets the objections you have raised in your post.

You can find Long's book here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/ssbm/ssbm00.htm

Wilson discusses it in several places, with his book Poltergeists coming to mind. (It's one of his best book, along with beyond the Occult, which have a more nuanced view of the paranormal than his earlier work.) Might be worth looking into for something that follows a similar line, but is more interesting

[Tony M]

And thanks for posting that link about the chess match. I was unaware of it. It is really an incredible case - an easier to understand version of the cross correspondence case, with its dizzying array of classical references, as well as a more objective version of the "artistic ability" cases like Patience Worth, Rosemary Brown or similar cases that involve subjective judgments of merit. You can either play chess at a Master level or you can’t. It would be clear to a Grandmaster within a few moves if you cannot play.

[Roger Knights]

I just finished rereading a book on Australian Aboriginals in my library, Primitive Psychic Power: The realities underlying the psychical practices and beliefs of Australian aborigines (originally Living Magic, 1956), by Ronald Rose. It contains this quote on multi-souls:

“But the situation is confused somewhat by the concept of each native having a number of spirits. There is, for example, what might be termed the primary spirit or soul which existed before the birth of the native and at his death returns to the Dream Time, to totemic spirit groups, or to the god Baieme. There is also at least one secondary spirit … which is like a ghost. This survives usually for about three days, longer in the case of violent deaths, but then just disappears.

[Zerdini]

As for me, I may just move on to another book.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, maybe...

I have just bought Stieg Larsson's trilogy, Michael, as they were highly recommended.

Even though they were published posthumously and translated from Swedish, his trilogy has sold more than 20 million copies in 41 countries (spring of 2010).

[LisaNYC]

Another great piece, Michael.

You write: "It might be argued that some of them appeared to have diminished capacities -- to be confused or inarticulate -- but others seemed to have full possession of all their faculties."

I believe that the appearance of any "diminished capacities" is most likely a result of the limitations of the spirit's ability to communicate from where they "are" to our own material Universe frequently, which is not always easy, not due to any "diminished capacities" of consciousness or any other consequences as a result of crossing over.

From all the evidence that I've read, consciousness and awareness is heightened on the other side, not diminished in the slightest.

[RabbitDawg]

It's books like this that cause the use of the descriptive phrase "New Age" to be a pejorative, at least in many circles.

[Kathleen]

This sort of reminds me of what Jane Roberts' Seth spoke of, but Seth took it a lot further, with our consciousness able to fragment (he often spoke of having a fragment of his consciousness living as a dog). But Novak's idea doesn't strike me right for some reason. Perhaps our consciousness can fragment, but not in the way he is describing.

[Matt Rouge]

From what you write, Novak is painting a rather hellish picture of the afterlife, in which the unconscious mind goes into its own miserable limbo, and the conscious mind completely loses the heritage of its past.

Unpleasant... but could it be true? All I can say is that nothing I've ever read about spirit communication and NDEs verifies it at all.

I have some philosophical arguments against it, too. If the conscious mind truly loses *all* connection to unconscious minds with which it has been associated, then how do we even know that they were connected at all? What would the difference be between the conscious mind as posited and a completely new spirit that never had such connections in the first place?

I would say that there *is* no difference, and the only way one could know that they were connected is if an authority (God, a spirit in the know) simply said that it was so.

The consistent picture I get from my readings is that a person becomes more unified after death, not less.

[alexis]

not a very holistic approach!I really recommed a NDE at www.the dailygrail.com posted yesterday. Its only one experience but tom my mind provides a fantastic overview and if you were only ever going to read when DE or NDE that would be a good choice. Inspiring!

[Art]

Alexis, I went to http://dailygrail.com/ and looked for a near death experience posted by "tom my mind" but couldn't find it? Would it be possible for you to go back to that website and find the NDE you are talking about and post the whole link to the exact NDE you are talking about? I'm a big near death experience fan and really enjoy reading people's accounts of their experiences. I would really like to read it and I couldn't find it. Thanks.

[Rodney]

http://www.dailygrail.com/Spirit-World/2009/5/Near-Death-Experience-Dr-Bruce-Greyson

[Tharpa]

I read NDEs whenever I get nihilistic or cynical. I spent years looking for serenity through extensive meditation retreats and therapy- now I just read a freakin' NDE story or two and feel my heart glow in recognition.

[Michael Prescott]

"looked for a near death experience posted by 'tom my mind' but couldn't find it"

Heh. I think "tom my mind" was a typo for "to my mind."

No wonder communicating over the Internet is so hard!

"From what you write, Novak is painting a rather hellish picture of the afterlife"

Yes, he does describe it as an unpleasant fate. That's why Jesus had to rescue us from it ... or something.

"Reminds me of a book that Colin Wilson discusses in several places, Max Freedom Long's The Secret Science Behind Miracles"

I read some of that book a year or two ago. It was interesting. I should probably go back and finish it ...

Colin Wilson provided an introduction to Novak's book, BTW. He had high praise for it.

[Dave W.]

"psyche vs. psuche"
Michael,
After Novak's book, I too craved some light reading and indeed, took a break from spiritual/metaphysical blogs. I agree he paints a dark destiny.
Not being a dog who can let go of a bone I continued to think about it, in spite of myself.
My wife, a student of New Testament Greek, always challenged me on my loose mixing of the terms soul and spirit, and explained to me their origins. Through this, I found a possible explanation for the dichotomy I recognize in my "self".
Though you've expressed your skepticism of Newton's work, I still find it somehow rings true for me as I've expressed before. One thing that comes through in Newton's work is that we would be alive as humans without spirit, but not as interesting. In his chapter that deals with pets, it seems they have a life force, but not a spirit.
Could we, as human animals, have both an animal life force, as well as a spiritual component? Could the jump between primitive man and "civilized man" be due to the entrance of spirit into our world?
Though I have a great interest in military history and weapons, I abhor violence ?!. I have come to call "Self 1" the "meat machine".
Latest insight (subject to change without notice!), is we are a blending of a conscious biological entity ruled by natural law, instincts and hormones, with a spirit that is privy to a higher world and a higher consciousness. What of Nature vs. Nurture, and Creation vs. Evolution? Might it be a bit of both?

[Michael Prescott]

"Though you've expressed your skepticism of Newton's work ..."

I do find it interesting, despite my skepticism. I just received "Destiny of Souls" from Amazon today.

"One thing that comes through in Newton's work is that we would be alive as humans without spirit, but not as interesting."

That does seem to be his view. It seems to imply that the human body has a mind of its own. If so, I have to wonder what happens to that mind after death. And which part of the soul-mind combo is "me"?

"In his chapter that deals with pets, it seems they have a life force, but not a spirit."

And yet many mediums and a few NDErs have reported seeing pets in the afterlife ...

"we are a blending of a conscious biological entity ruled by natural law, instincts and hormones, with a spirit that is privy to a higher world and a higher consciousness."

It's certainly a possibility. But then I would assume that the "animal" part of us is extinguished at death, and whatever is left must be rather different from the familiar earthly "I." And maybe that is exactly what happens.

[Art]

"And yet many mediums and a few NDErs have reported seeing pets in the afterlife."
---------------------------

Remember the holodeck in Star Trek: The Next Generation? All the characters on the holodeck were generated by the computer. They saw themselves as being separate but in reality their existence was controlled by the computer.

Here are two interesting excerpts:

from Michelle M's NDE:
"I remember understanding the others here.. as if the others here were a part of me too. As if all of it was just a vast expression of me. But it wasn't just me, it was .. gosh this is so hard to explain.. it was as if we were all the same. As if consciousness were like a huge being. The easiest way to explain it would be like all things are all different parts of the same body."
http://www.nderf.org/michelle_m's_nde.htm

From the Holographic Universe:
"Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

from "The holographic universe: When it pays to be first"

"If this doesn’t blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: ‘If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.’"

http://blogs.monografias.com/sistema-limbico-neurociencias/2010/02/19/the-holographic-universe-when-it-pays-to-be-first/

We are simply living in a holographic projection which simply means that everything that is "here" has to be "there." Only because of the blurriness inherent in a holographic projection - the other side will seem even more crisp and clear, or "more real" to us than this side does.

And this means that our beloved pets will meet us on the other sides and we will be even more connected to them there than we are here. Love is the key. Whatever we love, whatever we focus our attention on, that is what we will experience.

[alexis]

Art
the website address is www.mellen-thomas.com
Michael yor sarcasm is a bit purile!

[Zerdini]

I may just move on to another book.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, maybe...

Update:

Rooney Mara has been cast as Lisbeth Salander in 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo'

The 'Social Network' actress will star alongside Daniel Craig in the English language remake of the Swedish novel.

The 24-year-old beauty beat a number of high profile actresses including Kristen Stewart and Carey Mulligan to the role in the David Fincher-directed piece.

It will be the first of a trilogy of films and she will reprise the role in 'The Girl Who Played With Fire' and 'The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest'.

The film - adapted for the screen by Steve Zaillian and produced by Scott Rudin, Cean Chaffin, Ole Sondberg and Soren Staermose - is due to begin shooting in September following a cinematic release in December 2011.

The original novel, written by Stieg Larsson, has sold in 40 million copies in 44 countries, and all three in the series have topped the New York Times Best Seller lists.

[Michael Prescott]

"Michael yor sarcasm is a bit puerile!"

What sarcasm?

[Tharpa]

Michael's sarcasm was a glandular surge from his animal body. Just kind of snuck it in there when his spirit wasn't looking.

C'mon Michael. 'Fess up. You're dripping with unknown, unacknowledged, undetectable, invisible and completely nonexistent sarcasm.

You animal.

[Michael Prescott]

Now that's sarcasm!

[Sandy]

C'mon Michael. 'Fess up. You're dripping with unknown, unacknowledged, undetectable, invisible and completely nonexistent sarcasm.

Wow, Tharpa. You make Michael's unacknowledged animal sarcasm seem rather sexy. All guys should be dripping with this stuff.

No, I'm not being sarcastic! I'm sure if you could look into my big blue eyes you would know just how sincere I am. (Is there a smiley that denotes sarcasm, BTW?)

=)

[Sandy]

Hey! It turns out there is a "sarcastic smiley".

http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~helwig/smileys.html

So now Michael can be very clear about intended sarcasm (as opposed to invisible, nonexistent sexy animal sarcasm). He just needs to use the right smiley!

:->

[alexis]

So sorry Michael I was wrong it was Art who did the search on 'tom my mind' my typo and you just correctly stated it was a typo .Please accept my apologies fro my complete misreading !duh.

[Matthew_X]

Yeah Does not Stack Up to the empirical Evidence regarding the afterlife.

In Daoism (as I am learning because I am training in Acupuncture) There is the Animal Soul and Corporal Soul. I have not come across any good discriptions of each and how they seperate after death. The animal soul may be a part of the collective earth mind perhaps while the corporal soul goes on after death.

[Michael Prescott]

"Please accept my apologies for my complete misreading"

No problem.

"He just needs to use the right smiley! :-> "

Somehow that doesn't look like a sarcastic face to me. I guess it's supposed to look like someone is pursing his lips.

I think one raised eyebrow would be better, but I have no idea if this is possible in smileyland.

"I am training in Acupuncture"

I've had acupuncture.

They say it's painless. :-)

They lie. :-(

It did seem to work, though.

[Eteponge]

All of the points you raise Michael are the very problems I've had with the "division of soul and spirit" theory, that I first read about years ago. It didn't make sense to me then either.

It just doesn't match the data.

As you pointed out, they claim that the part of us that moves on to the afterlife is sealed off in it's own heavenly or hellish dream world, with no knowledge of here beyond their physical death, and that mediums just connect to them to extract information for their loved ones, and then they go back to being brainless sealed off ghosts once the mediumship connection is severed.

But, of course, real spirits in mediumship very often talk about many things in regards to their loved ones that has happened AFTER their own physical death. And they even make remarks about "still watching over them", etc. Some talk about things that happened at their funerals, and events in their loved one's lives in the months and years and decades afterwards. And give specific examples to prove this, showing that they are still aware and are not "sealed off".

And as you also pointed out, past life memories and inbetween lives memories are what conflicts with the other half of the coin, the "clean slate spirit" reincarnating.

And with that, we should dismiss this theory as nothing more than noise, not signal. There's an awful lot of noise out there, that doesn't get us to the bottom of anything.

If, after death, our consciousness is greatly expanded and unrestricted, and we can be in multiple places at once, etc, then, possibly, we can reincarnate part of our consciousness back here physically (putting it back in this limited consciousness box), while still having another part of our unrestricted consciousness (still connected to the other here) other there.

The consciousness on this side would be as limited and restricted as we all are here, but would still be a part of and connected to the unrestricted one still over there from a previous incarnation.

Which would explain mediums still being able to connect to long dead persons, and people tapping into past life memories and other weirdness. Without invoking total division of soul / spirit.

That sounds more plausible than the mindless dream zombie soul and the separate clean slate spirit.

Just a possibility.

[Eteponge]

Also, the existence of earth bound ghosts who notice other people's presences, interfere, interact, and can even eventually "move on", etc, throws a big wrench in that "brainless sealed off dream ghost" theory.

[Sandy]

"I think one raised eyebrow would be better, but I have no idea if this is possible in smileyland."

It is! `:-)

[Michael Prescott]

Cool.