God and the afterlife

It's sometimes said that the question of whether or not there is life after death is separate from the question of whether or not there is a God. And this is true. It's certainly possible to imagine life after death even in the absence of any supreme Creator or cosmic Mind running the show. It's also possible to imagine a God that doesn't deign to bestow immortality on his–or its–creations.

In fact, I recall one case of a confirmed atheist who nevertheless believed in life after death. The editor of an atheist journal, he became convinced of an afterlife upon studying the R-101 case, which I've written about elsewhere. He startled his readers by declaring that the R-101 communications established the reality of personal immortality, at least to his satisfaction, but he went on to say that he still didn't believe in God. There is nothing intellectually incoherent about this position.

Nevertheless, I find that, for me personally, the idea of an afterlife is closely linked to the idea of God. Here's why.

Let's say that there is life after death but no God–meaning there is no ultimate power in the universe responsible for designing and overseeing a cosmic plan. In that case, there seems to be no reason to expect justice, morality, or even simple decency and fairness in the cosmic scheme of things–because there is no cosmic scheme. There is only the ad hoc chaos of an unregulated, unsupervised, ultimately meaningless existence.

Now, if this is true, then the afterlife becomes problematic at best. Who would want to live forever, or even for a short time after physical death, if such a life consisted of a whirl of nightmarish confusion? Would we derive any comfort from the idea of life after death if we believed we were being cast into an unending bout of insanity, a horror movie from which we could never escape?

Some say that the absence of a God doesn't necessarily imply chaos and horror, since there might be self-regulating or self-organizing principles at work–something like karma, for instance. Still, it is hard to entrust one's fate to the blind workings of a purely impersonal, amoral cosmic mechanism that might prove to be as pitiless as the Darwinian survival of the fittest or as arbitrary as the metamorphoses of a fever dream.

I think the comfort offered by the idea of an afterlife depends, at least implicitly, on the assumption that there is a logic, a justice, and a meaningful, overarching plan put in place by an Intellect infinitely superior to our own–an Intellect that knows what is best for us even when we don't, and is looking out for our best interests and protecting us from the vicissitudes of existence. Without that assumption, the afterlife starts to look more like a chamber of horrors, at least potentially, than like Summerland.

Moreover, I think we implicitly derive the inner strength necessary to contemplate eternal life–and the inconceivable challenges and opportunities it presents–from the idea that each of us is an extension of God, and therefore shares, even if only to a very limited degree, in God's power and significance. Stripped of this confidence, we are really just trivial scraps of spiritual flotsam and jetsam tossed about on a turbulent cosmic sea.

Thanks to the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea of a wise, just, and caring God is so deeply ingrained in the Western mind that most of us probably accept it in some form even if we consciously reject it. I'm not talking about confirmed atheists, of course, but about people who have an interest in spiritual seeking. We probably tend to assume that the world is set up in such a way as to make sense and to bring about an ultimately fair resolution for each of us, and that the afterlife, along with possibly a succession of physical incarnations, is part of this divine plan.

Your mileage may vary, but for me, an afterlife unplanned and unsupervised by any higher power is an afterlife I'd prefer to avoid. And since such evidence as we possess suggests there is a moral purpose and a higher plan to postmortem survival–evidence like the life review in near-death experiences, for instance–I think it is reasonable to posit a Mind and an intention underlying it all.

And if there isn't? Then fasten your seat belts, people ... because we're in for a bumpy ride. 

Comments

[Bruce Siegel]

Interesting piece, Michael. Gets me thinking.

"Thanks to the Judeo-Christian tradition . . . We probably tend to assume that the world is set up in such a way as to make sense and to bring about an ultimately fair resolution for each of us."

That's an interesting point, but I wonder if that assumption stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, or from something even deeper--the innate wisdom that informs that tradition. I'm talking about our subconscious (often deeply buried) sense that we are in fact, pieces of God come to Earth for a physical adventure.

I'm thinking of the worst sorts of offenders--serial killers, for example.

I notice that even people like these, though they may feel some guilt, also maintain a certain perception of rightness about themselves--that they're somehow not entirely to blame, but merely playing out the hand that was dealt them.

And to an extent, given their history, they're right.

I think that at some level, we each know the truth of the matter--that as "bad" as we may seem, in the larger scheme, there's nothing at all wrong with us. And therefore, we *deserve* that fair resolution you speak of.

[Bruce Siegel]

To complete my comment:

In other words, deep inside, we all know that there is both a God AND an afterlife. And the two, as you say, go hand in hand.

And isn't that born out by NDErs who say that what they encounter when they leave the body may be stunning, but at the same time feels so very, very, familiar?

[Postgygaxian]

I like this post.

I have a somewhat different take.

The notion of an afterlife does not comfort me, any more than the notion that humans are generally born with five fingers on each hand. The afterlife just seems to be the way that things are.

What I do find comforting is the notion of tat tvam asi - the notion that apparently separate minds are parts of One Mind. Given that notion, time and death are irrelevant. If everything is ultimately part of monistic reality, there's no separation from a redeemer. Nothing that is real can be harmed.

[Art]

Just for the record there is a third alternative and that is free will is an illusion and our Universe is designed to be the way it is in order for the soul to learn certain lessons. Another words the education of the soul may be too important to leave up to chance. Most religions in the world are based on free will and our brains give us the illusion of free will but I'm not so sure that's true.

Our Universe may be an illusion and after we cross over we will look back on this life like it was a dream or illusion; something we had to endure in order to teach the soul the lessons it needed to learn. And they had to be emotional enough to imprint on the soul so we wouldn't forget what it felt like to be separate, what time and space looked and felt like, and make memories of what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

[Michael Duggan]

Thanks for the link to the R-101 case. Highly evidential, even taking into consideration any weaknesses.

[Juan]

I believe that the ideas of afterlife and God alone are historically linked, but are not closely linked by themselves, because the afterlife is to be seen as a natural phenomenon, comparable to the electromagnetic fields, the quantum vacuum or the photosynthesis, while God is by definition the supernatural being created the universe. The order is expected in the afterlife does not imply the existence of God as the order in the material does not imply the existence of God: both areas of reality according to certain regularities can follow physical or psychological laws, but these laws can be taken as primitive, without further explanation as could be God. For empirical research is better to separate these two issues because the afterlife can be more easily addressed empirically that God, which could hardly be addressed by the experience.

For Art, I find a contradiction in what you say, because if the soul has not free will, then the soul could not learn moral lessons (this is the kind of lessons are we supposed to learn, I think), because learning something morally is the power to choose good and evil and choose good, but the power of choice is free will, so if we are here to learn moral lessons, then we have free will.

[Sojourner]

I can't help but think that given the concepts of "God", our individual existence, and an afterlife, there must also be some sort of inherent spiritual herarchy or order of progression.

Also, if things are both individual and monistic, then would we ever be able to meet a single, unitized, individualized, focal representation of God apart from each individual who has become one with that same mind and spirit?

Perhaps the Fatherly concept of God that we tend to lean toward, whether in a pre-existent, here-and-now, or afterlife situation, will forever be by faith.

[Art]

"For Art, I find a contradiction in what you say, because if the soul has not free will, then the soul could not learn moral lessons (this is the kind of lessons are we supposed to learn, I think)," - Juan
-----------------------------------------

If we are here to learn moral lessons then the Creator of the Universe is quite stupid and inept because a lot of people fail at that endeavor. All they learn is how to be selfish and look out for themselves.

However if we are here to learn what it means and how it feels to be separate, what time and space look and feel like, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe then everyone is successful at that because duality and separation seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe.

Life is one big long lesson in separation, from the moment we are born and separate from our mothers and the umbilical cord is cut till the day we die and our deaths become a lesson in separation for our loved ones we leave behind. Every time you pick a grape off a vine that is a lesson in separation, every time you pick an apple or a tomato, or a banana that is a lesson in separation. Every time you wake up and use the restroom that is a lesson in what separation is.

Why the lesson in separation? Because the feelings of oneness and connectedness on the other side are so overwhelming (as per numerous NDE descriptions) that it may be impossible to know and become a separate, unique, individual in the place we call "heaven."

The soul's lessons seem to be embedded in our everyday lives and it is holistically imprinted with what it needs to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe. It doesn't matter if you are an Eskimo, or an Australian Aborigine, or a Siberian Shaman, or a Hollywood movie star you will experience duality and separation, time and space, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

[Art]

We are simply spiritual beings having a physical experience. Separation. Time and space. Memories of what it was like to live in a 3 D + 1T universe. It's as simple as that.

[zerdini]

Constant repetition doesn't make it true!

[Juan]

Art

I am able to admit that we are here to learn the separation, but not just for this, because I believe that according to reports from people who have had near-death experiences and even people who have been hypnotized and apparently remembered the period life between successive incarnations, we are here to grow spiritually, that is, learn moral lessons. Also, these reports do not deny free will, rather it is supposed to at all times, because if we were deterministic or random automatas, then would be meaningless to show us the feelings evoked in others during the review of the life to be better people, among other examples.

Finally, you assume that the spiritual realm is fully interconnected (the hologram), but the evidence suggests that by dying people gather with their loved ones and not to any individual, individuality is maintained despite the fact that since our current perspective seems incompatible individuality and the close ties between spiritual beings, and so on.

[sbu]

Great post. I personally also believe that our only hope of an afterlife is close connected with theism. If there really is an afterlife there must be reason why we aren't supposed to know. The problems with substance dualism strongly argues against an afterlife being a natural phenomenon. This article gives a great summary of some of these issues:
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/F.Dilley/defense.htm

[Art]

"and even people who have been hypnotized and apparently remembered the period life between successive incarnations, we are here to grow spiritually, that is, learn moral lessons." Juan
-----------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm really sorry but I don't believe that. I also do not care for reincarnation at all either. At least we can agree on the "life after death" thing though!

I've read and heard too many NDE descriptions that say that what happens here doesn't matter - no judgement - which leads me to think that the lessons are we are supposed to be learning are holistically imprinted or embedded in our everyday lives and we learn what we are supposed to learn whether we want to or not. The Education of the soul is too important to leave up to chance.

[Matt Rouge]

Good post, Michael. I like how you take topics we discuss in the comments and explore them further on a regular basis.

When asked, I do say I believe in "God," but it's *not* the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, who is kind of a cosmic a-hole, when you get right down to it (IMHO).

Michael, you offered some good counter-arguments to your own, yet some of your "buts" to the counter-arguments didn't really work in my view:

Some say that the absence of a God doesn't necessarily imply chaos and horror, since there might be self-regulating or self-organizing principles at work–something like karma, for instance. Still, it is hard to entrust one's fate to the blind workings of a purely impersonal, amoral cosmic mechanism that might prove to be as pitiless as the Darwinian survival of the fittest or as arbitrary as the metamorphoses of a fever dream.

The principles needn't be impersonal or amoral or even unconscious.

I think the comfort offered by the idea of an afterlife depends, at least implicitly, on the assumption that there is a logic, a justice, and a meaningful, overarching plan put in place by an Intellect infinitely superior to our own–an Intellect that knows what is best for us even when we don't, and is looking out for our best interests and protecting us from the vicissitudes of existence. Without that assumption, the afterlife starts to look more like a chamber of horrors, at least potentially, than like Summerland.

Or, contrariwise, the idea of an inescapable unitary God that wants to control everything completely can be horrifying in its own right. What's even worse is a God who wants to control us but doesn't really offer consistent protection or even the feeling thereof.

Also...

Thanks to the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea of a wise, just, and caring God is so deeply ingrained in the Western mind that most of us probably accept it in some form even if we consciously reject it.

This is pretty broad. "Some form" could encompass just about anything, and what else can I do to prove that I don't embrace this concept other than to consciously and vocally reject it?

I believe in the New Age concept of "Spirit," which, in my interpretation, is an emergent property of the Universe and not the arbitrary creator of it (though it does participate in creation, as do we all).

I also don't see much evidence for the monolithic, controlling "God" of Western religion from mediums, channels and NDEs, though of course a percentage is interpreted along those lines.

[Art]

"Still, it is hard to entrust one's fate to the blind workings of a purely impersonal, amoral cosmic mechanism that might prove to be as pitiless as the Darwinian survival of the fittest or as arbitrary as the metamorphoses of a fever dream." - Matt Rouge
--------------------------------------------

LOL! I didn't know we had a choice! I'm thinking that any consciousness smart enough to create all this would also be smart enough to make it where we accomplish what we are supposed to accomplish regardless of whether we believe It exists or not. It's called "holistic learning" by the way and I have 30 semester hours towards a Masters degree in it from The University of Tennessee College of Education.

[someone]

Were You raised in any particular faith, Michael, or were you born secular?

[Matt Rouge]

Art, that quote was from Michael, not me.

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

To answer "someone's" question, I was raised as a Lutheran, but my upbringing wasn't very religious.

[Art]

I was raised Lutheran also. I still have my Christening certificate and my certificate that says I went through Confirmation. I went to St. Matthew Lutheran Church in Atlanta, Georgia when I was in High School. When I was in College I met a girl from the Church of Christ and I ended up marrying a Church of Christ girl, although not the same one I first started dating! It's rather ironic since I'm not a conservative fundamentalist but I do appreciate their dedication and loyalty to family. I attend Church with my wife and her family. It's not so onerous. I like our preacher. He's a very decent person.

[Douglas]

Personally, I believe that we are part of the 'whole', individualised for the purposes of experience. You can call the whole, 'god', 'the source', 'the force', or whatever you like.

So for me, there may be no 'god' in the traditional judeo-christian sense, but there is still a higher power and organising principle - except the 'higher' power isnt realy higher than us, it IS us: this is what is so hard for use to get our heads around, especially from a traditional judeo-christian perspective.

We are looking for something external to us, but what if we ARE 'God' and 'God' is us.

[BenSix]

Your mileage may vary, but for me, an afterlife unplanned and unsupervised by any higher power is an afterlife I'd prefer to avoid.

So would I. On the other hand, I'd also prefer to avoid an afterlife that entailed the damnation of billions of luckless Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists and agnostics. That doesn't, however, mean the Christians need be wrong. My preferences don't really matter when it comes to fact claims.

[Barbara]

"the idea of an inescapable unitary God that wants to control everything" Matt Rouge

I don't see how it can be otherwise. If God isn't in control, then who is? There would need to be polytheism - many gods all vying. Not a pleasant thought, if we're the pawns.

[no one]

"...In that case, there seems to be no reason to expect justice, morality, or even simple decency and fairness in the cosmic scheme of things–because there is no cosmic scheme. There is only the ad hoc chaos of an unregulated, unsupervised, ultimately meaningless existence.........it is hard to entrust one's fate to the blind workings of a purely impersonal, amoral cosmic mechanism that might prove to be as pitiless as the Darwinian survival of the fittest or as arbitrary as the metamorphoses of a fever dream..."

The after life as Wall St's brand of capitalism?

Agreed. Yuck!

I like James Lieninger's statement, "God is whatever you need him to be".

Out of the mouths of children......

Perhaps if you need God as director, then you get that. If you need God as disciplinarian, you get that. Perhaps as you spiritually evolve you become increasingly more one with what is and require less of an objectifed diety?

At any rate it is always difficult to discuss these things because everyone has such a different perspective of what God is (or isn't).

[Michael D]

I've been doing the comparative religion thing for several decades, only broadening it in the last ten years or so into realms that might be designated "paranormal".

I still have quite a bit to read, but it's interesting to see how my opinion on the afterlife issue has changed, the more points of view I've been exposed to. I suppose that at some point or another I would have agreed with everyone above.

The challenging part has been to try to sort it out, figuring out what's possible/plausible, and who's just a charlatan. It's not nearly as clear as skeptics would want to believe, and as I get a clearer image of it all, I have to say that the image gets less clear, not more. I get the feeling that the story of three blind men describing an elephant is the most applicable explanation.

[Bruce Siegel]

Douglas said:

"Personally, I believe that we are part of the 'whole', individualised for the purposes of experience. You can call the whole, 'god', 'the source', 'the force', or whatever you like.

So for me, there may be no 'god' in the traditional judeo-christian sense, but there is still a higher power and organising principle - except the 'higher' power isnt realy higher than us, it IS us: this is what is so hard for use to get our heads around, especially from a traditional judeo-christian perspective.

We are looking for something external to us, but what if we ARE 'God' and 'God' is us."

So glad to hear you say that, Douglas. Sometimes I feel like the only one here who sees it that way.

It's a matter of bi-location, really. We exist here on Earth as pieces of God. And at the same "time" we also exist outside the time-space continuum in the undivided state (we call God).

And if the idea of existing in two separate realms simultaneously sounds crazy, think about what happens when we dream. The body remains anchored in the physical domain, while the mind wanders outside time and space. (Thus the ability to have precognitive dreams.)

Our daily lives are sort of the opposite. Part of us--the Higher Self, or God--remains outside the physical, while it dreams a very convincing dream in which it plays the roles of you and me.

[Steve]

Great post and excellent comments.

Just some thoughts of my own for what it is worth:

I am re-reading The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant and I especially like Durant's chapter on the philosopher Baruch Spinoza, which seems to me an important interpretation of Who or What God is.

Durant quotes from Spinoza:

I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All is in God; all lives and moves in God. And this I maintain with the Apostle Paul, and perhaps with every one of the philosophers of antiquity, although in a way other than theirs.

Durant goes on to explain Spinoza:

The will of God and the laws of nature being one and the same reality diversely phrased, it follows that all events are the mechanical operation of invariable laws, and not the whim of an irresponsible autocrat seated in the stars. The mechanism which Descartes saw in matter and body alone, Spinoza sees in God and mind as well. It is a world of determinism, not of design. Because we act for conscious ends, we suppose that all processes have such ends in view; and because we are human we suppose that all events lead up to man and are designed to subserve his needs. But this is an anthropocentric delusion, like so much of our thinking. The root of the greatest errors in philosophy lies in projecting our human purposes, criteria and preferences into the objective universe, Hence our "problem of evil": we strive to reconcile the ills of life with the goodness of God, forgetting the lesson taught to Job, that God is beyond our little good and evil. Good and bad are relative to human and often individual tastes and ends , and have no validity for a universe in which individuals are ephemera, and in which the Moving Finger writes even the history of race in water.

My own thoughts:
I have had people say to me that I don't believe in a personal God, to which I reply that quite the opposite is true; I absolutely believe in a God that I can talk to and seek to join with even if only briefly. A good question to ask yourself is: If God died, would I still exist? If the answer is yes, you don't believe that all things move, breathe and have their being in God , as the Apostle Paul said. Instead, you believe that whom you thought was God is instead simply a really powerful wizard.

Physicists tells us that every thing is energy and that all energy came into existence at the creation of our universe or The Big Bang. That is God. The Energy that is our very being and which sustains us. I like to think that She sustains with Her thought. (or He or It -- does it matter which?)

In the conclusion of the chapter on Spinoza, Durant writes that "Wordsworth caught something of the philosopher's thought in his famous lines about"

Something
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air.
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man; --
A motion and a spirit, which impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.

Those lines are from Wordsworth's poem Lines Written a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey and I like to think that reality is like a beautiful poem and the only structure to it is that which gives immeasurable pleasure to Beings of Light and Energy who are exploring the unfolding of the universe.

[no one]

".. have had people say to me that I don't believe in a personal God, to which I reply that quite the opposite is true; I absolutely believe in a God that I can talk to and seek to join with even if only briefly. A good question to ask yourself is: If God died, would I still exist? If the answer is yes, you don't believe that all things move, breathe and have their being in God , as the Apostle Paul said. Instead, you believe that whom you thought was God is instead simply a really powerful wizard...."

I like that. Thanks.

"We are looking for something external to us, but what if we ARE 'God' and 'God' is us."

But that gets back to the whole issue of 'ego'. If we are acting out of our personal ego, with the negative connotation of the thing, then we are not acting as extensions or forms of god. When the ego is set aside, then it seems more likely that we able to be closer to the true expression of what we are; which may well be god. So we can be both god and not god.

[Matt Rouge]

I am with Bruce, Douglas, and no one on this.

I think New Agers are pantheists at heart. God inheres in all things. We are God, God is us.

God is mysterious; there is no saying definitively what it is.

I think we mostly agree, however, that "He" is not the God of the Bible, cracking skulls and taking names.

Steve,

My understanding is that Spinoza was basically an atheist who had to couch his philosophy in theistic terms. He still got in trouble for it, though.

Cheers,

Matt

[Douglas]

Hi Matt, Agreed, but the problems soon start once we attach lables to things. So we say we are pantheists. At that point we begin to rationalise a viewpoint or perspective and then it's not long before others raise logical objections - then before you know it you are on the usual argumental bandwagon.

I guess we can't help it because we are inclined to rationalise things which may be beyond rational thought.

[Barbara]

"So we can be both god and not god."

This implies that god is only the good and harmonious -a very human interpretation. God is exploring the yucky stuff too, through us.

[Alexander1304]

Great post ,Michael.This is why I feel deep distaste for G.Wassermann theorty,who tried to reconcile psi/survival with mechanistic materialism,invoking the cocept of shadow matter.Anyway,alsmost 20 years passed since he published his theory,and it is almost no mentioned today.
Meanwhile I put my hopes into such books as two,boht of 2011,Stafford Betty "The Afterlife Unvelied " and Michael Tymn "The Avterlife Revealed".Both are based on mediumistic communications,and both mention reincarnation and different levels in the afterlife.I honestly have no idea to what extent these mediumistic reports can be trusted,but,as Stafford Betty points,"when hundreds,even thousands repeat much the same,we should be impressed".Well,for me righ now these 2 books is the last word...

[no one]

Getting back to Michael's arguments, like, "...Without that assumption, the afterlife starts to look more like a chamber of horrors, at least potentially, than like Summerland....."

I don't see where any of it logically follows. Why would the afterlife be a chamber of horrors without god?

First, the after life could be a chamber of horrors WITH god. After all, assuming that god exists, he/she/it certainly then at least permits all sorts of horrors here on earth. Perhaps, as Barbara (and Nancy Danison*) offers, god is an amoral experiencer that needs "yucky stuff" to expand its horizons of experience as much as it needs harmonious stuff.

So, god could create a little shop of horrors for us in the after life just to experience that through us**.

If we - each of us - are gods, then could we not create our own after life according to what is in our hearts and souls; perhaps much as we create our own dreams which can be pleasant, meaningful or not meaningful or terrible, but require no external direction***.

Could we not join with like minded souls in the after life to create communities that issued forth positive, neutral or awful feelings depending on the combined energies of the souls inhabiting them? Newly departed would be attracted to communities that fit their "life style" just as they are here on earth. Why would we need a god for any of this?

* Still can't stand her and think she is a delusional ego maniac, but recognize that others find her believable and valuable.
** I don't really believe this. However it is a valid argument, IMO.
***I actually think that a not insignificant portion of our dreaming does involve external influences. Yet, I also think that a position asserting dreams are only internally generated has merit and can not be summarily dismissed.

[Steve]

Hello everyone. Great discussion.

Here is a snippet of what Wikipedia says about atheism and theism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Matt, I do think that Spinoza may have been an atheist; however, I wonder if his belief that God or the "thing" in which "all lives and moves in" is a consciousness and perhaps the only consciousness. I know that he says God is the structure of the universe but I don't think that he rules out that the organizing structure and laws of the universe is something that is aware of itself. My feeling is that Spinoza saw the organizing principle behind all things as The Deity -- but that is just my thought or prejudice and I have nothing to back that up with. I am not educated well enough to discern from Spinoza's writings his thoughts about that and have to rely on other's interpretation of his thought.

Having been raised in a strict Lutheran community, I have had to reconcile my belief that God is not a deity or "somebody" with the teaching that I am an atheist and doomed to Hell. Early in life I settled on what I consider a theistic view of reality that Wordsworth so eloquently put into words:

"A motion and a spirit, which impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things."

My unshakable belief is that we are not separate from God nor for that matter from each other or anything else. We are, as they say, sparks of the same flame. We are experiencing the illusion of separateness for some reason and when we realize that we are the same thing and players in a great drama then we are, as some have said, "awake in the dream".

We have somehow been given the gift of having our own individual personalities and understanding the hows and whys of that gift is a driving force in our existence. Experiencing our existence as a human being is just one of countless other types of experiences that we will indulge in during the age of the universe (perhaps longer). We do this just because we can and because our eternal nature is one of boundless curiosity about this unfolding universe of organized energy that we call our Creator. I do believe this energy is self-aware and that it is the source of my being. Regardless of what my former Lutheran associates would say, that is a theistic philosophy and I have even unashamedly reconciled it with my Christian upbringing and see no inconsistencies in my belief of Jesus being from God (that is just a personal thing that I had to do to get over my religious upbringing).

I don't think that there is any sort of organized hierarchy in the afterlife -- it is just our human attempt to explain what we experience or remember or attempt to divine about reality. Human language can't describe the reality that all things exist in and so we attempt to humanize it. There is no chaos behind it all and everything happens as the Creator dreamed it. I may be completely wrong, of course.

[Matt Rouge]

Steve,

Great thoughts. We have a lot of overlap between our ideas here, and I think we're probably about 80% in agreement, if such a percentage can be calculated. In any case, I think that's what makes New Age thinking work: we don't have to agree on everything or anything in particular; we just have to agree in the main.

I've read the Ethics of Spinoza and have it on my book shelf, but I won't pretend to have digested it fully or even remember it all that well. Time for a review! I would call it a "brilliant but incorrect" book. He basically comes up with the idea of parallel universes saying that all things that possibly can happen must happen.

PROP. III. In God there necessarily exists not only the idea of his essence, but also the idea of all the things which follow necessarily from his essence.

Proof. - God can think infinite things in infinite ways (Prop. I, Part II.), or (what is the same thing, by Prop. 16, Part I.) he can form an idea of his essence and of all things which follow necessarily from it. Now all that is in the power of God necessarily exists (Prop. 35, Part I.). Therefore there exists such an idea, and that only in God (Prop. 15, Part I.). Q.e.d.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ne/spinoza.htm

But God ends up being equivalent to the Universe, which includes these infinite things. Oh, and there's no free will. It's all kindof a downer.

The book I have has more content than this, but it's in a bag because I'm moving my books and stuff. Argh. Anyhow, happy reading...

Douglas,

To a certain extent I think we need labels and arguments. We need them at least to distinguish more correct thought from less correct thought as a practical matter on this planet.

God/Spirit may never be understandable to us totally, but if it were completely unintelligible to us, then we would not be talking about it--even if our talking is just pointing roughly in the direction of *something.* Pointing in one direction means not pointing in another; affirming necessarily implies negating. And affirming and negating mean labeling and arguing to some extent.

Barbara,

no one is now the second person to point out the similarity of your thinking with Nanci Danison (I was the first). Actually I have a theory that you *are* Nanci, lol. Not that I want to blow your cover here. Would you care to comment on whether you've read her or listened to her ideas at all?

Cheers,

Matt

[Art]

"This implies that god is only the good and harmonious -a very human interpretation. God is exploring the yucky stuff too, through us." - Barbara
--------------------------------------------

The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates.

Emotions Make the Memory Last
Jan 31, 2005 – "Ever wonder why some memories can stay vivid for years while others fade with time? The answer is emotion."
http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/.../emotions-make-memory-last

The stuff that happens to us has to evoke enough emotion to imprint on the collective consciousness the lessons we are here to learn. We here in the physical universe just can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness on the other side.

It doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative - it just has to be powerful enough that we remember it. Divorce, moving away from friends, the death of a loved one, all different ways of experiencing separation - teaching the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate - something it can't learn in heaven because of those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness.

The same with physical pain. It teaches the soul about the body. The shape, controlling the body, what it feels like to be in a body. Like a sculptor with a chisel carving a statue of David out of Marble. Bits of information, like pixels on a TV screen, the more pixels the more clear the picture. We have to gather enough bits of information so that after we cross back over we will be able to use that information to conjure up a body when we want one. The alternative is to exist as pure consciousness for eternity.

[Matt Rouge]

OK, Art, I choose to exist as pure consciousness for eternity.

[Art]

"OK, Art, I choose to exist as pure consciousness for eternity." - Matt
--------------------------------------------

Knowing nothing, thinking nothing, doing nothing, like a gas in a cylinder, filling the whole space, where nothing exists, and you exist for trillions and trillions of years thinking and doing absolutely nothing. Just pure consciousness existing as pure consciousness but without thinking. That is the alternative.

"I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously." - excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE, http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

"I had the realization that I was everywhere at the same time...and I mean everywhere." excerpt from Carl Turner's experience, http://www.beyondreligion.com/su_personal/dreamsvisions-kundalini.htm

"Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole."
- excerpt from The Universe as a Hologram,
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

[no one]

"I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously." - excerpt(s) from no one's meditation, OBE and LSD experiences

Yet I question strongly, as a given,

"We here in the physical universe just can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness on the other side."

As I have had an afterlife communication (with some verifiable evidence) from someone stuck in what can only be described as a hell. Not very connected, no blissful oneness. In fact, what was communicated to me left me sick to my stomach and disturbed for some time after the experience.

Connectedness, oneness and all of that may be a possibility and perhaps a temporary one at that (see Tibetan Book of the Dead).
We ascend/descend in the after life to realms alligned with our personal spiritual specific gravity, where we experience a world created out of our own thoughts and desires.

Think of like this, Art. Around New Years people see the light. They realize they are sedentary and fat and recognize the need for a healthy life style. They flock to fitness clubs and purchase memberships. They work out regularly in January, less frequently in February and by April or May they don't even know where their membership card is. Old habits/thinking have regained the upper hand. Maybe next year.

Until someone can offer more than faith or carefully cherry picked NDEs as evidence to the contrary, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Matt Rouge]

Well, I will be pure consciousness that DOES think. And I hope not just for "trillions and trillions of years"--I want my *full* eternity!

Cheers,

Matt

[Alexander1304]

I tend to think about it this way.I Stafford Betty's and Michael Tymn's book the picture of an afterlife is given by mediumistic communications.They especially emphisize te existence of different(presumably 7) different spheres through which spirit goes in its evolution.It's hard to believe that these spheres are the result of "blind,impersponal" forces.So,mediumistic communications described in these books are either fake - and then ALL idea of an afterlife begin to seem doubtfull,in my opinion ,or they are true - in that case all this talk about different(7?) spheres is creditable,and it is hard to believe that these 7 spheres are result of blind forces.

[Matt Rouge]

Here's another point, guys.

Doesn't our planet look like the product of evolutionary forces? I sure think so.

Humans are rather arbitrary and odd-looking creatures.

What is more plausible: That "God" said, "Let's make humans in such and such a way," or that humans evolved, as modern science avers. I think the latter.

That's why I believe in a "bottom up" universe. I don't think this is a diorama created by "God" for His satisfaction or to teach us "lessons" or anything like that.

Similarly, I think spirit is an emergent property of the Universe--on several levels. I think consciousness developed in many different ways and in many different worlds, some of which can more easily communicate with each other. It may be the case that spirit comes into being in every single world that exists.

So, to Alexander1304's point, the Afterlife could have been constructed by the consensus consciousness of departed humans, or perhaps higher-level beings got involved at some point. Just as humans built cities (i.e., not blind forces) without "God," perhaps they built the Afterlife, too.

I don't know. I don't have the answers. But I lean very strongly away from a worldview in which a "God" creates a world as odd and wonderful and terrible as our own.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

"So, to Alexander1304's point, the Afterlife could have been constructed by the consensus consciousness of departed humans, or perhaps higher-level beings got involved at some point. Just as humans built cities (i.e., not blind forces) without "God," perhaps they built the Afterlife, too."

Yes. That is exactly my point as well.

[Matt Rouge]

Yes, no one, we are quite often on the same page.

Cheers,

Matt

[Robert Perry]

I've come in a bit late on this discussion, but I really applaud you, Michael, for bringing this topic up. My take, rightly or wrongly, is that we paranormal folks tend to shy away from the topic of God. It's like we're already a step away from the guys on the religion side of the fence, just by virtue of what we're involved in, and we want to maintain a nice, clear, high fence between our side and theirs. Talking about God is like taking boards out of that fence.

I've only been heavily into NDEs for the last two or three years, but one of the things that has really struck me is just how many of them report experiences of God. I had the impression from my past reading of NDE literature that NDErs often encountered a "being of light," and this being could be Jesus, Buddha, an angel, God, etc. Yet now, having read and watched hundreds of accounts, I see that the encounter with God as the Being of light is one of the chief features of NDEs. Further, the God reported is not the Christian God who both loves and judges. And it's not a pure consciousness God that one might expect from certain forms of Eastern spirituality. It's kind of a blend of both, but more specifically, it's a God of pure love, a God with personal qualities--this God speaks and interacts--but without anything like the human ego and its judgment and anger.

This really, really surprised me. I'm struck both by it and by the absence of discussion of this in NDE literature. That latter thing reinforces my sense that we in the paranormal want to make sure we keep that fence intact. It's also, again, why I appreciated this post so much.

[juan]

I'm with Matt, because the evidence indicates that the afterlife is a kind of collective construction based on our conscious and unconscious desires, without an external constructor could be called God. The material realm can also be a kind of collective construction, but in this case the matter presented rather more resistance to our desires.

[Aftrbrnr]

I know of an NDE experiencer who identifies herself as an atheist. This causes a lot of confusion for people, because atheism is essentially a synonym for materialism especially in the Western world. Yes, this particular person is not a materialist and believes in survival, but she doesn't believe in a deity. However, when she does bring up she is an atheist, almost everyone assumes off the bat she is someone who had an NDE but didn't believe it was anything more than a wacky brain episode.

This is why I've been using the term materialism more than atheism as of late, technically atheism means just a lack of belief in gods and nothing more, some how during time materialism got tagged onto it.

[Matt Rouge]

Robert,

I definitely acknowledge what you're talking about. It's one of the reasons why I believe we're not just here "to experience" and that, as "no one" often emphasizes, morality is important.

This being exemplifies love without judgment, and this value or quality is seen as important by those who experience it in an NDE. That leads me to believe that "love is the answer," that our real mission is to exemplify this quality too.

The Being of Light may not judge us for our failures, but the Being does seem to teach by example, and the Being's presence often seems connected to a life review in which the experiencer can see how he or she succeeded and failed to exemplify love in this life.

At the same time, this Being certainly seems quite unlike the "God" of the Bible. There is a theory, I think I read it here and it may have been Michael's theory or one he was passing on, that the Being is the Higher Self.

I had the experience of meeting my true self, which was gray and imperfect but nevertheless "shone" with the love one hears about in NDEs. It was an incredible experience.

Cheers,

Matt

[j9]

No one, is your experience with the communication with the person who was stuck in in a place that can "only be described as a hell" too personal to share? I would be interested in hearing the details, if they can be shared. If not, no worries.

[Douglas]

'There is a theory, I think I read it here and it may have been Michael's theory or one he was passing on, that the Being is the Higher Self.'
-----------

Hi Matt,

Yes, this theory comes from Seth and Elias (among others).

Elias in particular states that the being of light that we encounter during NDEs is actually an encounter with our 'Higher Self'. He doesnt like to use the term 'higher' as that implies a chain of being, when Elias's remit is promoting wholeness. He likes the term 'Wider Self' better.

What we term our Higher Self is that part of us which continues to reside outside of physical time/space but it continues to interact with us. Actually, it IS us, only we are that physically focused aspect of itself that has forgotten this!

Seth and Elias call the higher self our 'essence'. Now, at times other 'essences' can also communicate with us, but more often than not during the NDE, it is our own essence that is interacting with us.

We can well imagine that if we had no concept of 'essence', 'higher self' or anything outside of the usual religious framework, then we would likely equate the light with god.

Of course, from another perspective, from that of wholeness, it is god, as are we all, but it is perhaps a clearer expression of god, so those who equate the light with god can be said to be correct depending on how you choose to interpret things.

[no one]

"I had the experience of meeting my true self, which was gray and imperfect but nevertheless "shone" with the love one hears about in NDEs. It was an incredible experience."

Ah... excellent, Matt. I don't want to assume that we have had the same experience, but I think we probably have. If you don't mind, may I ask some questions about it?

Would you agree that the grayness is the result of the individual ego's desires, fears, selfishness, etc.?

Would you agree that the soul/spirit axis that shines with love and creative power is inspirational and in light of it the things that cause the grayness could be described as sins? Sins being that which dulls the light, as opposed to breaking concrete rules.

Because that is where my sense of morality comes from. Having seen (I think) the same light that you speak of and wanting to give my life over to it and having a taste of how that would feel and knowing that that is the natural intended state, I am able to recognize that which I do that takes me away from it. To go step further, I even see illnesses and all of the problems of the world as resulting from actions, thoughts, behaviors that obscure the light.

But the forgiveness factor is there too. The inner light seems to quietly understand that I am trying, but prone to failure. It doesn't tell me that failure is OK. It does say that trying is good and encourages me to keep at it; all in love.

So, yes, it seems that the same light NDE experiencers talk about is also inside of you and me all the time; not out in some external realm. And it is accessible to us at all times.

Does this sound familiar at least, Matt? Thanks.

[no one]

"No one, is your experience with the communication with the person who was stuck in in a place that can "only be described as a hell" too personal to share? "

It is very personal. However, I did share it on J. Long's NDE site and I will share here because I think that everyone here is seriously interested in the topics and trying to learn. Also, I suppose if anyone wanted to they could figure out who I am (I would be one of two people) from the account. And I guess that is ok too as long as my real name doesn't get posted on the blog (please). While I hold a day job in corperate USA I have to be careful about image maintenance. You'd be surprised how they snoop around the internet.

In the mid 1980's, when I was a young man in college, I was deeply into Chinese martial arts and chi raising exercises that traditionally accompany those. I began having spontaneous OBEs as a result (I think that was the cause). I learned to control these to some extent and noticed that often there was pre-cognitive material involved. I rigorously tested the evidence of true precognition and was able to rule out coincidence, subconscious cues, etc in several instances.

In the late spring/early summer of 1987 I had an OBE in which I "saw" a commercial airliner crashing. Without going into the details, I knew that my mother would be killed soon in an airplane crash and that she would be flying to Arizona to see me and my brother when it happened. I urged her to not fly. She dismissed my concerns as being the result of my increasingly strange indulgences in Native American and Eastern spiritual practices. My brother, a very sensitive individual, had similar precognition. His concerns were also dismissed. My mother traveled a couple of times that summer and nothing happened and this, oddly, contributed to her fate because she became more concerned that, instead of pursuing a respectable career in the service I, and my brother, were going down some weirdo path into insanity and obscurity. She was determined to visit us and have a talk with us about our futures.

Taking off from Detroit Metro, her flight, Northwest 255, crashed and burned on Aug. 16, 1987. She was killed along with 156 others. One little girl survived (a miracle) with severe burns.

After her death my brother and I felt her presence. We both agreed that she was, to quote my brother, "pissed". I felt chaos and anger and desperation coming from her.

Now it is important to understand that she was a talented, high powered woman. Very proud,very talented. Always dressed in expensive designer clothes. Nothing less would do. Someone that stood out in any crowd and someone who sought the highest levels of society for company. To die so suddenly and horribly while still in her prime (she was a very young 52) would have been an affront to her. She did also have a great passion for life and a tremendous capacity for love.

Ten years later, I was married with two children. My wife knew what had happened to my mother and my children knew that they had a grandmother that died in an airplane crash, but we never ever talked about that aspect; only the good memories and the good traits.

I hadn't felt her presence in a while. Maybe I was blocking because when I did feel, the anger and confusion were still there. My brother on the other hand did experience a presence more frequently and also perceived the same feelings. I'd ask him once a year or so about this. Otherwise, it was an off limits topic as it was too painful.

As the 10th anniversary of the crash approached, my daughter - she was seven - began having nightmares in which a "witch" was grabbing at her. She was talking and screaming in her sleep and started sleep walking. Then, on the night of Aug 16th 1997 My wife, my daughter and I all woke up at the same time (around 11:00 pm). We had all just experienced terrifying nightmares. My wife's and mine could be better described as visions; a different quality than normal dreaming.

My daughter again described an angry witch that was grabbing at her trying to steal her body. My wife described in great detail being in the airplane with my mother, or more accurately, seeing the crash through her eyes. Then she described seeing as though through her eyes the aftermath. Wandering around not realizing fully that she was dead. Finding her mangled body and noticing that an arm was missing and that a favorite bracelet, that had been on that arm, was also gone and being very upset about that. Generally there was severe emotional shock and anger as the realization of what had happened dawned.

This is where some evidence comes in. It is true that a favorite bracelet was lost in the crash. It was an unusual carved ivory piece. My wife never saw it, I never described or even talked about it and checking later, I couldn't see it in detail in any photos (it was there in some photos, but too small in the photos for to be indentified as ivory let alone for accurate observation of the carvings. Yet, my wife was able to describe the bracelet to the T. My wife was also able to describe other details of the crash that I knew about, but had never discussed and that were not publicly available; which I'm not going to get into here.

My vision/dream involved my mother in a chaotic raging mental state in this foggy corner of some realm. There were four or five other women there, all in the same frame of mind, and there was an overseer, also female, who was nastiness personified. She kept her prisoners stoked up on their anger and confusion. And yes, there were fires burning in the corners. It was like the fires were the product of the angst of the prisoners. Also, it should be noted, the prisoners were held by their own mentality. They could have broken out if they could have changed their minds. The overseer helped make sure this didn't happen.

I did receive communication. My mother wanted me to see what had happened to her (which seems to be what she wanted my wife to know as well). It was like she was telling us the story of her fate. And she was, indeed, really "pissed" about it. It was as if she was so desperate that she would even use my daughter as a way out if she could (as in possession?).

As we began to tell each other about what we had experienced I realized that something significant had happened and we all took a time out; with my wife and I independently writing down our experience, observations, etc and my daughter doing a combination of writing and pictures.

The observations and, especially the emotions, that the three of us experienced compared perfectly. We each got a slightly different view of the same picture.

You probably had to be there to understand that this was real.

My mother's desperation was so great it could not be ignored any longer. My wife made it a full time job for the next month or so to find someone who could help. She managed to contact some Buddhist monks in California who,in turn, put her in contact with some other monks in India. We spoke with them and, at no charge, they got involved. They were very understanding and helpful.

Interestingly, the monks suggested that we have another child so that my mother could reincarnate and get out of the hell that way. After what we experienced my wife and I agreed that we did not think this would be a good idea. The monks understood; agreeing that there would be certain challenges involved.

They helped us to do some other things. More importantly I believe they helped my mother's soul. About nine months after enlisting the aid of the monks my cousin (mother's sisters son) announced the birth of a son. I don't keep up with these folks and they don't miss me. They are Philedelphia Main Line blue blood types (the type my mother loved). However, I understand that the son is quite effeminate. At any rate, for what it's worth, I haven't felt my mother's presence since then.

I left out a lot of details in the interest of brevity, but that is the gist of the thing.

[Michael Prescott]

I encountered the idea of the Being of Light as the higher self in one of Kenneth Ring's books, though I'm sure it has cropped up elsewhere.

"Wider self" - I like that. It fits with the idea that the self we know while incarnated is only a narrow slice of a much wider spectrum.

I am more of a top-down guy than a bottom-up guy. The order and complexity of the universe indicate, to me, an overarching plan. As Fred Hoyle said, it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics. I also think the complexity of life and its dependence on encoded information point to an intelligent cause.

It seems to me that if spirit arises out of matter as some kind of evolutionary development, then matter is more fundamental than spirit. I'm inclined to think spirit is fundamental. If anything, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not vice versa. Or as James Jeans put it, the universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine.

I agree that New Age people tend to be pantheists, but I've never identified myself with the New Age movement. I agree with the skeptic who said New Age should be pronounced "newage," to rhyme with "sewage." Typically, New Age stuff draws no distinctions between evidential cases, like NDEs, and folklore, like numerology or crystal power. And it's intellectually lightweight in the extreme. Or so I see it. Your mileage may vary ...

[Bruce Siegel]

"It seems to me that if spirit arises out of matter as some kind of evolutionary development, then matter is more fundamental than spirit. I'm inclined to think spirit is fundamental."

I agree. As somebody once said: thanks to Darwin, we're the only people throughout history to think we are ascended from dirt rather than descended from the gods.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Thanks for clarifying the source of that valuable information.

Some comments on yours:

I am more of a top-down guy than a bottom-up guy. The order and complexity of the universe indicate, to me, an overarching plan. As Fred Hoyle said, it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics. I also think the complexity of life and its dependence on encoded information point to an intelligent cause.

I don't disagree that super-intelligence is at work in the Universe. I just don't think a demiurge would fashion each aspect of earth and humans will all of their egregious flaws.

Rather, I think Spirit "felt its way," so to speak, toward worlds in which consciousness could come into existence. Our universe is not the only one.

It seems to me that if spirit arises out of matter as some kind of evolutionary development, then matter is more fundamental than spirit. I'm inclined to think spirit is fundamental. If anything, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not vice versa. Or as James Jeans put it, the universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine.

Well, I think there there is something even *more* fundamental than either spirit or matter that gave rise to spirit/consciousness/matter and every other mode of being.

I certainly don't think human spirits are just lumps of soul arbitrarily stuffed into these bodies. I think that their origin is connected to existence in this world (even if reincarnation is true, which I think it is).

I agree that New Age people tend to be pantheists, but I've never identified myself with the New Age movement. I agree with the skeptic who said New Age should be pronounced "newage," to rhyme with "sewage." Typically, New Age stuff draws no distinctions between evidential cases, like NDEs, and folklore, like numerology or crystal power. And it's intellectually lightweight in the extreme. Or so I see it. Your mileage may vary ...

More importantly, I think New Agers tend to be leftist and that's going to be the biggest reason why you don't feel the vibe. Also, the top-down "God" sits more comfortably with your authoritarian side. Yet, I will also concede that one reason the same "God" doesn't pass my smell test is because of my own anti-authoritarian bias.

I don't agree that New Agers draw no distinctions between this and that. It's just that we accept many different modes of thought for different situations. I too use stones, crystals, Tarot decks, prayers, rituals, etc. They work. I think they can even be demonstrated objectively to work (I think the placebo effect works under the same principle; i.e., it's basically magic or ritualized intention bending reality). But they work in their own mode, which is not the same mode as, say, mechanical engineering.

Cheers,

Matt

[sbu]

No One - very evidential account, but I think Art won't like it.

Matt - They work. I think they can even be demonstrated objectively to work

What falsifiable experiment would you propose?

[Bruce Siegel]

Hey, no one, thanks for sharing that great story. With all that interesting psychology and those veridical details (especially the bracelet), it's quite a compelling tale!

[Matt Rouge]

Sbu,

I read your Tarot cards and you're like, "Wow, dude, you were so RIGHT!!!"

Cheers,

Matt

[sbu]

I read your Tarot cards and you're like, "Wow, dude, you were so RIGHT!!!"

I don't think that experiment will win us the nobel price.

[Michael Prescott]

"I too use stones, crystals, Tarot decks, prayers, rituals, etc."

I don't use/do any of those things, but someone did talk me into playing with "angel cards" once. My impression was that the statements linked to the cards were so vague they would apply to anyone -- sort of like the horoscopes in TV Guide.

I do think Tarot cards may help some people to focus their psychic abilities (if any). Perhaps palm-reading serves the same purpose. I don't think there is anything objectively readable in the palm, but making a physical connection with the other person may help establish a psychic link.

A lot of newage, though, is just plain silliness. Numerology, for instance. How can a word have any deep metaphysical meaning when it's an accident of etymology? Or The Bible Code, which finds patterns where there are none. Someone even wrote a book claiming that Hebrew phrases are encoded in our DNA! And then there's the "face" on Mars, the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus ...

And there is unfortunately some overlap with legitimate areas of inquiry. PMH Atwater's books sometimes veer into weird newage territory, which undercuts the more serious studies she cites.

It's hard to strike a balance between critical thinking and open-mindedness, and none of us ever gets it exactly right, but I think the newagers are way, way too open-minded for their own good.

Okay, politics. Gotta say, IMO it's not possible to be antiauthoritarian and a socialist. Socialism is inherently a top-down authoritarian system. It leads, in extreme form, to dictatorships and, in milder form, to bureaucratic statism of the type seen in Western Europe and, increasingly, in the US. Bureaucratic statism is sometimes necessary -- e.g. when enforcing health and safety regulations -- but it's always authoritarian.

My personal view is that the government should be strong but limited. It should enforce the law diligently, but the scope of the law should be restricted and clearly defined. Government should provide a clearcut, orderly framework in which individuals can pursue their interests with minimal interference, and laws should be unambiguous so that judges, regulatory bodies, and politicians cannot make up the rules on the fly.

This is authoritarian in that it calls for a strong government, but it's also libertarian in that it aims to maximize individual freedom of choice and minimize abuse of power by the ruling class. We must always make tradeoffs like this. A strong but limited governmental authority strikes me as the only practical way of balancing individual freedom with community order. The tension between these two approaches is reflected in American history (Jefferson vs. Hamilton, Andrew Jackson vs. the central bank, the western pioneers vs. the eastern money interests), but this tension is not a bad thing, if it checks the excesses of both sides.

Today the government micromanages aspects of our lives that it ought to stay out of, while failing to oversee problems that are within its purview. It worries about secondhand smoke, but lets crime run rampant in the inner city. It frets about politically incorrect language, but ignores flash mobs. It punishes farmers for kicking up too much dirt when they turn the soil (an Obama EPA ruling), but fails to look into an epidemic of bad mortgages and high-risk derivatives.

Government expends huge amounts of money and effort on things that matter little, while ignoring problems that threaten the safety and stability of our society. It's not that government is too strong or not strong enough; it's that government is weak (or absent) where it needs to be strong, and strong (even overbearing) where it ought to be weak (or absent). We've gotten our priorities mixed up.

[no one]

Sorry Art.

Michael, I couldn't agree more with your perspective concerning what gov't should and shouldn't be.

However, what gov't in history has ever come close to meeting those ideals? At the end of the day all governments end up doing the same thing; serving the interest of a priviledged minority and using the threat of death or imprisonment to control the rest.

Given that, some element of socialism seems necessary to ensure some acceptable of egalitarianism. As you say, there are always trade offs. So a little Western European style socialism involves some bureaucracy. There's your trade off. It seems like a reasonable one to me.

The problem with Americans is that they think, if left alone with their money, they will become one of the priviledged few. This seems to me to be as warped an objective as it is statistically unlikely. That or they want to believe that by following whatever rules are thrown at them and keeping quite and playing the game they will be OK. Another highly dubious assumption and one devoid of freedom at that.

Also, what party offers the ideals you espouse? The Republicans not only cater to the 1%, they also interject themselves into all sorts of personal matters concerning individual rights to an extent at least as much as the Democrats. The libertarians are just nuts. They don't want to pay taxes at all and have all sorts of wacky notions about where roads and schools and a military and health care (esp. for the elderly) would come from.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the connotations - perhaps the denotations - of the terms "authoritarian" and "anti-authoritarian".

[J9]

No one, that is an incredible story. Thank you for sharing and I can't imagine how difficult that must have been for your family to go through.

[Art]

"I just don't think a demiurge would fashion each aspect of earth and humans will all of their egregious flaws." - matt
--------------------------------------------

Unless our egregious flaws exist for a reason - to cause us to experience what we came here to experience. And it has to be emotional enough so that we don't forget it. Another words free will is just an illusion.

Is Precognition Real? Cornell University Lab Releases Powerful New Evidence that the Human Mind can Perceive the Future

http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/04/precognition-real-cornell-university-lab-releases-powerful-new-evidence-human-mind-can-/

Emotions Make the Memory Last
Jan 31, 2005 – "Ever wonder why some memories can stay vivid for years while others fade with time? The answer is emotion."
http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/.../emotions-make-memory-last

Everything happens for a reason and there are no coincidences. Even the bad stuff. If our mind can perceive the future that means the future all ready exists. We are actors playing our roles so that we will experience the things the soul needs to experience. The education of the soul is too important to leave up to chance.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

I agree with a lot of what you say, so I'm not sure these responses will be all that interesting, but...

I don't use/do any of those things, but someone did talk me into playing with "angel cards" once. My impression was that the statements linked to the cards were so vague they would apply to anyone -- sort of like the horoscopes in TV Guide.

There are many different divination systems: Tarot cards and many variations like angel cards, pendulum, casting runes, I Ching, and so on. I think they all work on a similar principal: that the "pressure of reality" (as I term it) will tend to make the nominally random system non-random. Plus, as you say, people throw in their own psychic abilities. Vagueness is the fault of the reader, not of the divination system. Readers can be very specific and very accurate. I have done Tarot for a long time and am regularly amazed at how accurate the cards tend to be. During readings I get a lot of impressions directly that do not depend on the cards. I can read without them, too, but the cards are good in specific situations because an unambiguously bad or good spread is something that you just have to digest and interpret.

I do think Tarot cards may help some people to focus their psychic abilities (if any). Perhaps palm-reading serves the same purpose. I don't think there is anything objectively readable in the palm, but making a physical connection with the other person may help establish a psychic link.

Numerology, palmistry, astrology all work on different principles from divination and are not modalities I use, but I do not dismiss them. I think what happens is that, even if the principles of the system are not sound, intuitive people simply make them succeed anyway. They are so complex that the intuitive will simply focus on what is right in any given instance. That said, these systems may or may not have some principles that work.

A lot of newage, though, is just plain silliness. Numerology, for instance. How can a word have any deep metaphysical meaning when it's an accident of etymology? Or The Bible Code, which finds patterns where there are none. Someone even wrote a book claiming that Hebrew phrases are encoded in our DNA! And then there's the "face" on Mars, the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus ...

I am with you. "Rabbit hole management" is quite important. This is limited not to New Age but just about anything. When I was in orchestra as a kid, music and the interactions of the people in the orchestra, that whole world seemed like the paramount reality. If one gets into a cult, it suddenly seems all true. I know when I was an atheist that all seemed true. If one shifts one's perspective, then that perspective seems true; and, to a certain extent, it *is* true. New Agers can definitely "lose it," when they become too open-minded as you say, and all that stuff seems true and they can't focus on anything in particular. You get people who are constantly "shifting" and never seem to really get anywhere with it.

But, as I said, I think this is a fundamental pitfall of reality itself. And we have our own tough times here with "rabbit hole management," as when all the evidence seems to point toward *something,* but then the next day you can write a blog post in which you ask yourself, "Do I really believe any of this?" And these doubts affect all of us.

I think the truth might be very complex indeed and be related to Goedel's incompleteness theorem, according to which no system is ever both complete and non-contradictory. In my way of thinking, the Universe is, within the scope of eternity/infinity, completing itself and resolving its contradictions, and this is both the cataclysm and hope of our existence.

IMO it's not possible to be antiauthoritarian and a socialist. Socialism is inherently a top-down authoritarian system.

Well, the definition of "authoritarian" according to Wikipedia is,

"Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

That works for me. That doesn't mean I think you're totally wrong. Socialism *is* a top-down system (as I believe *all* large-scale governments must be in the modern world), but it can be democratic. To me, the important thing is for a government not to bully the people. It should bully institutions instead. So I think I disagree with libertarians on half of this. They would skip the bullying the institutions part. Of course, I mean reasonable and rational regulation, but my point is that the burdens of government should fall on organizations and not the average joe or jane.

My personal view is that the government should be strong but limited. It should enforce the law diligently, but the scope of the law should be restricted and clearly defined. Government should provide a clearcut, orderly framework in which individuals can pursue their interests with minimal interference, and laws should be unambiguous so that judges, regulatory bodies, and politicians cannot make up the rules on the fly.

The question for me is what "limited government" could possibly mean in the year 2011. I ask conservatives to point to a country in the world that is doing "limited government" right, and of course they can't name one because it just doesn't work. On the other hand, all countries of the world already run on socialistic principles so it's a just a matter of choosing the best policies. The US already *is* a socialist country. But, because it's in denial, it's a very conflicted and sloppy socialist country. I am certainly in favor of the most rational and efficient and for that matter small government possible. But I *never* hear the right say concretely how government could be smaller, so I object to the "small government" rhetoric because it is nothing more than rhetoric. A brand without substance.

Today the government micromanages aspects of our lives that it ought to stay out of, while failing to oversee problems that are within its purview. It worries about secondhand smoke, but lets crime run rampant in the inner city. It frets about politically incorrect language, but ignores flash mobs. It punishes farmers for kicking up too much dirt when they turn the soil (an Obama EPA ruling), but fails to look into an epidemic of bad mortgages and high-risk derivatives.

I don't know about flash mobs, but yeah. It's a sloppy, disgusting morass that pleases nobody at this point. I would rather have a perfectly implemented libertarian system than what we have right now.

It's not that government is too strong or not strong enough; it's that government is weak (or absent) where it needs to be strong, and strong (even overbearing) where it ought to be weak (or absent). We've gotten our priorities mixed up.

I would say that we don't actually have priorities or a vision as a country any more. That is what I think is fatal. Look at Japan. I lived there 8 years. Love Japan. But it has no vision. Very little crime, 100% literacy rate, very orderly society. But it's totally lost its mojo, its project. It's no exaggeration to say it's lost its will to live: the population will decline by a third by 2050. And it comes down to vested interests feeding at the trough and not giving young people anything and letting the country decay.

That is where we are heading in the US. Vested interests are skimming the cream while the country goes to hell. And we are too politically divided with the sham division between Democrat/Republican and Right/Left to do anything about it. For now.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

No problem, J9. It is still a very painful series of events in many ways when I take the time to dwell on it all. However, it is absolutely the truth and, as far as I am concerned, absolutely real in its paranormal aspects and I have questioned those to my satisfaction. My wife, who is more sensitive in some ways than I, yet more skeptical as well of ghost stories and, really, anything paranormal, is also convinced. In fact, it was more of a life changer for her than for myself. Our son was never effected by any of it and we insulated our daughter. I'm sure she has no recollection. At the time we wrote it off to bad dreams maybe because dad put too many hot peppers in the chili con carne.

Sharing the story, to me, is helpful in that, believing in its reality, I think it contains lessons that we can all benefit from. I have had a few other less personaly intense experiences that, combined with what I shared, have left me convinced that the Tibetan Book of the Dead has it it right (I discovered that ancient text only after some of the experiences) and that the pop literature proposing that we all go to live with the pure love light for ever upon death is just a feel good sales pitch.

As Matt notes, I do insist that morality matters. Not the morality of the dogma that gets hurled at us from all corners, but the way we live as it relates to that inner light that Matt also mentioned. We are here to experience, yes, yet also, within that experience, to be tested and to grow, but this can be failed. The test is if we can evolve in love despite the challenges and temptations presented here to go down darker or duller roads. I don't know if the test is by design or by accident relating to the nature of existing in matter.

Sin is real. Sin can result in an unpleasant after life. Sin is any thought or action that is opposed to love. It is usually an out of control ego that leads to sin. I am not a "Christian" though I do think that Jesus tells the truth of the way if you stick to what he actually said and read it from a new age-esque perspective; which means avoiding all of the crap that THE CHURCH has heaped on as obfuscation.

With that I will step down from my pulpit. My preaching quota for the next decade has been achieved.

[Michael Prescott]

"I would say that we don't actually have priorities or a vision as a country any more. That is what I think is fatal. Look at Japan.... That is where we are heading in the US. Vested interests are skimming the cream while the country goes to hell. And we are too politically divided with the sham division between Democrat/Republican and Right/Left to do anything about it. For now."

Surprisingly, I agree with that, and with much of what you wrote. The ruling class is increasingly cut off from the people. And the people are either angry and frustrated, or anesthetized by trivialities (sports, celebrities, scandals, the latest trial of the century or $200 million movie spectacle).

As a society, we seem to be giving up. Even the birth rate is declining. And we don't seem to believe in anything anymore, least of all in ourselves.

Very depressing. Sometimes it feels like the last days of Rome ...

:-(

[Douglas]

Perhaps it is Michael.

We may in fact be in one of those great historical moments: The shift of power from west to east.

The west declines and power shifts to Asia and India, Brazil and other developing countries.

The economic crisis is a symptom of this. Yes, Asia is affected too, but they will untimately benefit from this. The sun is sinking in the west.

[Robert Perry]

no one, I too appreciated you sharing your story in the way you did. Of course, I wasn't there, but the way you told it, it had that feel of realness, something I could picture real people really going through. It can't help that something you experienced as deeply sad was also something that others would scoff at as pure fantasy.

Matt, for what it's worth, I'm politically to the left (of the Democrats), and yet I believe in a top-down God and feel quite alienated from the New Age (and got a good laugh from "newage"!).

Also, while I believe in a higher (or wider) Self, who loves us/is us, I don't think that would fit the Being of light in quite a lot of the NDEs I've read, in which people recognize the Being as their creator and, at times, are taken on tours of the universe as this Being's handiwork. So, while I don't see the Christian God there, I also have trouble seeing the higher/wider Self there.

[postgygaxian]

Dear no one:
That story is indeed another case suggestive of reincarnation. It would be interesting to find out if the woman had a "soul group" as some afterlife entities have reported.

[sbu]

And there is unfortunately some overlap with legitimate areas of inquiry. PMH Atwater's books sometimes veer into weird newage territory, which undercuts the more serious studies she cites.

I have followed research into NDE's for years and regulary check the web site claiming to be the most reliable source of NDE information (IANDS.ORG). And sadly this site also veers more and more into new age bogus terroritory.

[no one]

sbu, that is too bad. It just gives the Randi types ammunition and clouds the waters for those seriously involved in learning.

It seems that in all areas of life the minority are truly interested in getting at the truth of things and the majority are looking for feel good myths and fairytales.

[Matt Rouge]

Is IANDS really that bad?

[sbu]

There are somme issues. Originally it was quite academic with a lot of research updates etc. from people like Peter Fenwick and Bruce Greyson.

Today they highlight the youtube video with Dr. Lloyd Rudy which caused some doubts at MP's blog (and apparently he hasn't confirmed his story) plus a guy who first had an NDE and afterwards was in contact with an alien.

On top of that they have given much more space to anecdotal nde accounts as if they were trying to compete with nderf.org among others.

I think it's a consequence of the nde mania.

[Matt Rouge]

I haven't looked at IANDS much recently, but I remember it as being pretty solid. It is too bad if they've ditched their rigorous approach for something less rigorous. There is a place for that, too, but there's no reason to go half-baked on the approach.

To Michael and Robert,

I'm curious if you disdain Christianity as much as you do the New Age approach. "All that foolishness about the blood of Christ and dying for our sins and going to church and whatnot."

It's really no different. Most people have a fundamental need for myth as a way to process reality. In fact, who was it, LaShan I think, who said there was a scientific approach to reality, spiritual, mythical, etc., that is fundamentally valid and necessary.

Yes, I was reading about it on this interesting blog (which I first heard about here, thank you):

http://lightningoak.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/a-pantheon-of-paradigms/

Anyhow, that is a big part of what New Age thinking is: creating a story that unites different parts of reality into a coherent whole. And, I might add, a self-actualized whole. "Keep what resonates" is the motto, not, "Believe whatever the religion you were born into tells you."

We've also discussed "functional entities" on this blog recently. Well, the New Age is a "functional worldview." It seems true and functions as true the more you get into it. And it is an overwhelmingly positive, energizing, and *useful* worldview in my experience, though I would not push it on anyone for whom it does not *resonate.*

Why not just believe in the facts? The "evidential," as you call it? That's all well and good, but my key point here is that you can't escape the mythical. You can't simply choose *not* to fill in that blank, inasmuch as something *inevitably* fills it for you. The myth you create may seem "scientific" and "rational" to yourself, but it will seem just as silly and mythical to outsiders.

To give one example, Freudianism. Dude thought he was just doing "science," you know? Connecting the dots as best he could. And his methods and treatments and so on seemed to *work.* Now his approach seems almost religious--believing that stuff is *going on* in there, the mind!--and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of modern atheists. So he's discredited, and we treat mental illness with meds and don't think that what's bouncing around in people's heads means all that much. (Yes, I know Freudianism and various cognitive therapies still exist.)

To me, New Age people are a community with a good vibe and a fairly coherent and empowering way of connecting the dots of the phenomena we talk about on this blog, among other phenomena we don't. And personally, it's a cognitive aesthetic I enjoy.

Cheers,

Matt

[Bruce Siegel]

Sbu, what you're saying about the IANDS site doesn't seem all that damning to me.

As I recall, we were all impressed by Dr. Rudy's video. (Matt thought he was drunk, but hey, that's Matt for you.) :o)

As to the alien contact, Ken Ring himself thought there might be some connection between NDEs and the accounts of UFO abductees, and wrote at length about it in The Omega Project.

As to the "anecdotal nde accounts", anecdote is not necessarily a dirty word. These stories are all essentially anecdotes, aren't they? Though admittedly, some NDEs are better documented than others.

Anyway, having said all that, I haven't spent much time at the site lately, so I can't really say whether it's going downhill.

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt said:

"To give one example, Freudianism. Dude thought he was just doing "science," you know? "

Matt, I take huge exception to your dismissal of Freud. It's true, his thinking was skewed in many ways, and his approach flawed.

But it was Freud who helped us to understand that are lives and actions are greatly influenced and distorted by events in our childhood that still resonate within us, and cause us pain.

"So he's discredited, and we treat mental illness with meds and don't think that what's bouncing around in people's heads means all that much"

Holy mackerel--did you really say that? Don't you give any credence to the validity of such things such as post-traumatic stress disorder? Don't you think that the memories that arise from painful events need to be acknowledged and integrated, rather than just discounting them as inconsequential thoughts "bouncing around" in our minds?

Do you really think meds are, in general, a satisfying answer to our psychological problems?

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, just to clarify something, when I wrote the response to sbu and said "that's Matt for you", that was a complete joke. I wrote it before I saw your comment about treating mental illness with meds, and because you and I are so often in agreement that I felt safe teasing you a bit.

If I had seen that second comment, I wouldn't have made the joke, because I don't want you to think I meant anything by it.

[no one]

Actually, Bruce, Freud is indeed "discredited" by the profession he help found. Psychoanalysis is out and behavioral mod and drugs are in.

I, personally, see him as you do and think his ideas contain much that are valid (I like Jung too!). I even think that some of the discrediting is because people sense he is right and are afraid of the implications. How much easier to accept one has a brain chemistry imbalance and pop a zombie pill (that the psychiatrist gets a kick back on) than to sit down and take the time to face painful issues and work through them.

Matt, everything is a myth in the connotation that you provided. Some myths have more power because they are more useful systems for people to understand and interact with the world. The myth of western science is such a strong myth - so strong that its believers don't even realize it is a myth - because it allows a human/infinity interface that a)fills the belly and b) creates things like guns with which c) we can dominate and oppress others who don't adhere to our myth as well as some who do, but not quite as well.

As I see it, the new agers are trying to build an alternative myth that is based on peace, love and understanding. This looks goofy to adherants of the dominator myth. The dominators don't see the point of PL&U and sneer because they know they could crush such silly people; crushing and killing being what they value the most; albeit cloaked in the sub-myth of "progress". Ever note how many people are slaughtered in the name of progress?

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

To clarify, I am not anti-Freud at all (though anti- his atheism :)). I was just saying that what used to seem to be mainstream science is now totally "out" in mainstream psychology and looks like (to mainstream psychologists) myth-making on the point of Freud.

No offense about the joke. Hell, even if you were serious, I have plenty of quirks and faults and if I'm called out on them now and then, so be it.

no one,

Great point about the "dominators." Yes, the New Age is about hippie peace, love, and light. There are some negative New Agers who sell fear and enmity, but they are in the small minority, and their negative tendencies are nevertheless tempered by the overwhelming positivity of the worldview in which they participate. If there's one thing consistent about New Agers, it's that we don't do hate and exclusion very well.

Cheers,

Matt

[Bruce Siegel]

"I, personally, see him as you do and think his ideas contain much that are valid (I like Jung too!). I even think that some of the discrediting is because people sense he is right and are afraid of the implications. How much easier to accept one has a brain chemistry imbalance and pop a zombie pill (that the psychiatrist gets a kick back on) than to sit down and take the time to face painful issues and work through them."

Thanks, no one. Glad I'm not alone in this!

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, glad to hear I misunderstood you about Freud. Don't have the time today for a heavy debate. :o)

[Matt Rouge]

Well, Bruce, we can debate about something else!

:)

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

"The myth of western science is such a strong myth ... because it allows a human/infinity interface that a)fills the belly and b) creates things like guns with which c) we can dominate and oppress others ..."

I'd just like to point out that filling the belly isn't a small thing. Billions of people on this planet would give almost anything to be assured of a full belly.

My favorite charity, Heifer International, gives livestock to individuals in underdeveloped countries so they can obtain milk, cheese, and meat through their own efforts. A single cow can materially improve the quality of life for several families, and over time (as the cow's offspring are distributed throughout the village) it can make conditions better for everyone in the community.

One of the greatest developments in modern times was the "green revolution" in agriculture, which allowed impoverished people to grow two or three times as much food without wearing out the soil.

We in the industrialized world take our affluence and comfort for granted. We sometimes forget the herculean efforts -- intellectual and physical -- that were necessary to bequeath us this relatively effortless lifestyle. Materialism is not the complete answer to the riddle of life, but in all fairness, we do owe it an awful lot.

[no one]

"....relatively effortless lifestyle". Yes. I should have added that in addition to being endlessly greedy, dominator culture is, at bottom, lazy.

They want to build machines, conquer, steal, pillage the earth itself and enslave so they can get more for themselves at decreasing effort. What to do with all that free time? Build more machines, have machines entertain them like anesthesia.....get fatter.

There is nothing good about it, Michael. It is a mania of the worst kind. It's an addiction. And it's going to where all addictions go.

I also dispute that an American Indian circa 1400 had to work harder than Joe lunch box American does today. It probably seems like it might be so to a tender foot city slicker ;-) but I seriously don't think it actually was from an objective standpoint.

Yes. Joe lunch box has a nice air conditioned cloth covered cubicle and an ergonomic chair to sit in and a snack machine to feed his face whenever he is too bored to do anything and the monitor screen has fried his eyes. True, Joe never even has to walk (except to the snack machine) because he drives to work, sits all day at work, drives home, sits all evening at home. Progress! It would have been struggle to live without legs 500 years ago. Now he doesn't even need legs!

Yes, Sally Pants Suit can rush home and microwave up some chemicals she can't even pronounce and feed them to her children every day every year. And yes, with modern medicine their dismal meaningless lives of quiet desperation can extend into their 80s or even 90s. So many games of shuffle board!

Where is the purpose in those lives? Where is the heart? Where is the connectedness to the earth? The connectedness to the things that makes people feel free and happy and at peace in their souls? Traded for comfort and the perpetually full belly?

Personally, and I'm not alone in this, I would rather hunt and fish and farm and live free and naturally, even if that means some hard work, some hunger from time to time and perhaps a shorter life. Where the dominators are all about quantity, some alternative myths are more about quality.

If an underdeveloped country, or any country, has more people than they can feed off sustainable natural resources what they need, IMO, is condoms, not cattle.

Why is it a good thing that the population is expanding at an unsustainable rate? Why is good that we can support, perhaps encourage that?

[Michael Prescott]

"If an underdeveloped country, or any country, has more people than they can feed off sustainable natural resources what they need, IMO, is condoms, not cattle."

So your view about starving people in less developed countries is "let 'em starve"?

Sometimes "spirituality" is an ugly thing.

Anyway, Heifer is all about sustainable resources. The livestock donated to these families will multiply over time, making life better for everyone. The program has been around for decades, with solid results. It's worth supporting.

[no one]

I should include that people that work in coal mines, sweat shops and that sort of thing definitely work harder to eat than tribal people did before the dominator myth destroyed their worlds. Then there are all the people, millions of them, that have to live in cages. They are the flotsam and jetsom of dominator culture. The US has one of the highest prison populations, per capita, in the world.

What a weird progress.

[no one]

I am sure Heifer is a fine organization.

My point isn't that they should starve. Rather that they should not have gotten to that situation in the first place and wouldn't have if dominator culture hadn't thrown some basic principles out of whack due to its inherent megolomaniacal greed and sloth.

So we western dominator materialists wreck the planet ecologically and sociologically and knock traditional cultures off center and then we give them some cows to help them get with the new paradigm. I'm sorry. I cannot feel the warm fuzzies there.

Given that the situation exists, what to do... Let them starve? No. Of course not. I never suggested that. What do you want to do? Send them all to IT Tech school? Pacify them with cable tv? Should they live some quaint little lives milking their cows while the rest of the world does the exciting things they think they see on tv and that the various missionaries of the new world order tell them about?

You don't get it. The imperialism of the western world destroyed these people. They are lost. They are the walking dead. Trapped between paridigms; between worlds. Cows aren't goin to solve the real problem. there is more to life than bread and milk.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

It would seem that, by saying that overpopulated countries need condoms instead of cattle, no one was not suggesting that they ought to starve. Rather, they should control their population numbers better.

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

"Cows aren't goin to solve the real problem. there is more to life than bread and milk."

Not when you're starving ...

[Michael Prescott]

Matt, you'd have a point if "no one" had said we should send them condoms *and* cattle. But he said condoms, *not* cattle. So he doesn't want to feed the starving. Ergo, he wants them to starve.

Of course he's backtracking now. Yawn.

[no one]

Michael, I am not backtracking.

I stand by my original points and questions.

If there are billions of people on this planet that would like (better yet, need) to be assured of full bellies, then is the long term answer to that problem to feed them? After all, if they were robust enough to reproduce beyond capacity when they were hungry, at what rate will they reporduce when they are fed? Where does it end? A global population of eight billion? How about ten billion? Why not 50 billion? You tell me, please.

By enabling out of control reproduction we are merely postponing the starvation and pain to future generations.

Two analogies come to mind. One is the junkie who continues to use because the pain of withdrawing is too daunting to face. So he scrambles, scrounges, steals, prostitutes or worse to maintain a habit that will surely kill him.

The other is forest fires. A few decades ago people became concerned with the diminishing status of our woodlands. Some because they were nature lovers and others because they wanted to have the trees available to harvest. Whatever the motivation, forest fires were aggressively quelled. The problem was that by stopping smaller fires, brush and undergrowth grew at out of control rates. When the inevitible fire occurred despite anti-fire efforts, the fires, fueled by the excessive brush and undergrowth were even more devasting than previously. Now we have returned to a policy of controlled burns and allowing smaller naturally occurring fires to burn enough to eliminate the undergrowth.

Our western scientific myth has created a world out of order; out of harmony with the planet that sustains us. Now that we are out of order there are no easy answers. There are many conundrums. I am merely pointing out that bandaid solutions arising from the very myth that created the problems aren't going to help in the long run. Some day there are going to be hard choices that will have to be made. Deferring those to another generation is neither noble nor heroic.

I am suggesting that the validity and usefulness of the myth should be questioned before we get into any more trouble. I will add that a new,perhaps hybrid, myth is needed at this point. maybe a blend of some of the better aspects of scientific materialism and traditional spiritualuality (which usually contains instruction as to how to live in harmony with the earth and all of its non-human inhabitants).

Could I stand by and watch people starve when I could do something about it? No. Of course not. yet there is a bigger picture that must be considered. It does no good, again, in the long run, to address a problem without assessing and understanding its root causes.

[Robert Perry]

Matt, to answer your question about Christianity, I'm definitely not into the blood and the dying for sins. And church is pretty close to my personal hell! I really think there's a lot that is good about Christianity, and a lot that is good about the New Age, too, to be honest. But neither one's for me.

[Michael Prescott]

As populations become more affluent, the birth rate declines. We see this again and again. So I wouldn't worry about the Earth having to support 50 billion people. If the Earth's population is generally affluent, people will not be having so many babies. If the population is generally indigent, then infant mortality rates will keep the numbers down. Of course the first option is far preferable and, I think, much more likely in the long run. The general trend is toward more prosperity, not less.

Bruce asked, "Do you really think meds are, in general, a satisfying answer to our psychological problems?" They can do a world of good in many cases. Schizophrenia can be successfully treated by pharmaceuticals. So can clinical depression and panic disorder. I'm sure some drugs are over-prescribed, but often the right RX is essential to restoring mental health in people who suffer from these afflictions. A neurochemical imbalance does seem to underlie many disorders, and it takes an adjustment of the neurotransmitters to fix it.

Re Freud, I think his general observation that the unconscious mind plays a large role in our lives remains valid, but many of his specific theories, such as the Oedipus complex, appear to have fallen by the wayside.

Matt asked, "I'm curious if you disdain Christianity as much as you do the New Age approach." I have much more respect for Christianity because it comes with a long, erudite philosophical history. Any body of belief that can produce thinkers like Aquinas, Erasmus, and Augustine is worthy of respect, whatever its flaws. I also have considerable respect for some of the more serious Christian scholars today, like N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. There's also a long history of serious investigations of "miracles" by Catholic scholars, whose work was often quite rigorous. And I think the Christian worldview is probably closer to the truth than is, say, pantheism. That's not to say I believe in specific claims like transubstantiation or the necessity of baptism, or in the literal truth of all the gospel stories. But at the very least Christianity is a serious religion, while New Age-ism is mostly unserious and often downright silly, IMO. Your mileage may vary ...

[Michael Prescott]

BTW, if I misunderstood "no one's" comment about cattle and condoms, I apologize. It seemed to me, from the general tenor of his remarks, that he was expressing a Malthusian viewpoint. And there are still people who oppose the green revolution in agriculture because it reduced the death rate in underdeveloped countries.

As far as the dominator culture is concerned, perhaps we can compromise and have a dominatrix culture. I nominate Angelina Jolie for World President.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

I agree with you about Christianity and its philosophical tradition. I went to Catholic schools from junior high through college and appreciate what I learned.

The thing about New Age thinking is that we get to keep the best of Christianity--and any religion and philosophical tradition, for that matter. Because we do not belong to a religion and don't have to follow any dogma.

If I get to keep the best of Christianity, then I love it. If I had to believe one particular version of it and face the pressure of a particular community to be orthodox, then I would hate it.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

Well, on Agelina Jolie we can definitely agree.

Yeah, you did sort of misunderstand my comment. On the other hand, it was worded both abrasively and poorly for the ideas I was trying to convey.

I never thought about it before, but I guess I am a malthusian. That said, I don't advocate genocide as a method of achieving optimal population numbers; including genocide by starvation.

Then again, natural selection is an important force on our planet; impacting both individuals and groups of individuals.It is how organisms (both individual or societal) that are a bad match for the environment are eliminated. We are the only beings capable of suspending that fundemental natural law. I still haven't heard anyone explain WHY the law should be suspended. part of what i refer to as dominator culture is a fundemental belief that humans are paramount and destined to have dominion over the earth and all that dwell on it. I see that as strategically foolish and heartless.

I sincerely believe that as opposed to genocidal policies, sterilization is an apt policy for those societies with perpetual population versus food supply problems. I know some here will think this is sick and crazy. I'd like to hear the explanation of why it is.

Also, as societies become more affluent, and even as the birth rate declines, the societies consume more resources and create more harmful waste. Additionally, it is the rate that declines, not the overall population. The declining birth rate is also offset by the declining death rate. So, yes, I can see a population of 50 billion some day.

Where we will perpetually disagree is on the value of technology, consumerism and this thing called afluence. While I see some value, I see the cost being way too high. In between there is a lot that seems pretty neutral.

842 channels to flip through witha pizza in your lap or sit around the fire sharing stories about the latest hunt, telling the myths, drumming, dancing, playing musical instruments with ones neighbors who depend on you as much as you on them and feeling as though you are an integral and important part of something bigger?

As I said, I see there are conundrums and there are various politics using the condundrums to their advantage in competing ways. Where you come down on the issues is predicated by what counts in your value system. It is hard to debate values.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Sterilization would mean one society imposing its judgment and will on another, which would seem to be a dominator activity, no?

There are actually fairly few societies that have high birth rates any more. Think Sub-Saharan Africa, but even those societies are modernizing at a blindingly fast pace.

You've picked some societies that are appealing to me, too. I think a lot of the Native American tribes had a cool thing going on. I think Polynesia is another place where you could find similarly rich and interesting lifestyles.

A lot of ancient places, not so much. I would love to visit ancient Rome and China to see the architecture and whatnot, but I'd much rather live in our current world than back then. There were also cultures in North and South American practicing large-scale agriculture and city life that were more or less the same situation. You had a lot of drudgery and exploitation (i.e., slavery and all that).

So yes, if you go back to the year 0 or 1400 and pick the very best, most appealing societies, we might want to trade today for yesterday. On the whole, however, I don't think so.

Once Pandora pops out of her box, there's no shoving her back in. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of truth to what you say about the dominator culture, however.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

Agreed, Matt. There were definitely unappealing societies back then. Notice, though, the societies that you selected from that era as appealing are those that had low population density. The ones you note as being less apealing are those with cities and heavy population density. I firmly believe that humans are neither hardwired nor spiritually programmed for intense popluation living.

It seems to be, from my read of anthropological history, that physical illness (i.e. disease) and cultural illnesses are highly correlated with, probably directly caused by, heavy population density.

What I object to the most about indutrial modern societies is the lack of connectness to the earth and to each other. This is especially true in the most capitalist countries. There is a real dog eat dog mentality. Rather than working together for a common purpose, everyone is trying to rip each other off. This "self interest" is even celebrated as a positive. Every individual is replaceable; expendable even. Consumerism is what is worshipped instead of the creator and mother nature. It's truly ill. Yet when there are so many of us how could it be elsewise? At a certain point human life becomes cheap. The next human means little or nothing to the the others. We have to spend a huge percent of what we create of weapons and armies to protect ourselves from ourselves. We have wars in which tens of millions are killed. We have weapons aimed at each other than could, if deployed en masse, wipe out the entire planet. It's an cancerous insanity inherent in what we call progress.

But yeah, Pandora is out of her box and she's here to stay. Then again, maybe not. Who knows? Pandora is not all powerful. She just wants you to believe she is.

I think we are going to soon, I mean within the next year or two, five years on the outside, see some things happen that we could have never imagined would happen. Things both terrible and transformational. These events are going to call into question the whole dominator culture and all the techno toys that make it so appealing to some. When it's over there will be a rebuilding of societies based on the power of love as opposed to the love of power. Greed as a fundemental priciple for societal systems will be out and sharing will be in.

On the point of sterilization. Societies impose their judgement and will on others all the time. Why should this instance be different? I don't like it, but there it is. Why not? If we can invade countries and bomb their towns and kill their people because we think they are acting in harmful manner, why not impose sterilization? It seems less awful in many ways. I see options as pretty limited. You can let them starve and be subject to natural selection. You can try to feed them and probably ultimately fail, as has been the case historically or you can impose policies on them that prevent the first two options from coming into play.

I don't see sterilization as dominator tactics because the reason for sterilization isn't explotation. Rather the objective is to help; meaning get the population under control and then establish aid for sustainable living development.

I would wager that there are many governments in those troubled areas that would gladly implement sterilization on their own population if the means do to so were supplied to them.

[no one]

Fundemental question. Why is the right to freely breed considered inalienable and untouchable when we need special permission/liscence for everything else in life; for example to get married, to drive a car, to own a gun, to dispense and have medicines, to travel abroad, to operate a business, to fish.....

[Michael Prescott]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I think this excellent, scholarly book answers any questions about the advisability of sterilization:

http://tinyurl.com/7vq7ltn

I'm not playing "gotcha." This really is a great book, and it shows the dire real-world consequences of such talk.

[no one]

Michael, I think what you are attempting to invoke is the "slippery slope" argument.

Obviously, sterilization is not equivalent to what the Nazis did. The Nazis cherry picked some Darwinian concepts and some eugenic ideas, twisted them to fit their own barbaric imperial purposes and then proceded to murder millions of people while simultaneously attempting to conquer by force of arms the indutrialized world. That is a far cry from limiting the birth rate by preventing pregnancies for the purpose of building sustainable society/environment interface systems.

I know you are trying to assess from a real world perspective; i.e. if we use this approach what would actually be the consequences. I don't think that Nazism necessarily logically follows.

Any idea can be misapplied by those with evil intentions. Your argument reminds me of that of the atheist who condemns religion; correctly observing how christianity has been used as an excuse to war, enslavement and ignorance.

I too am assessing from what I see as a real world perspective. What actually happens when we have out of sync population/environmental interfaces? What I see from history is that people starve and die decade after decade in the same societies despite sporadic efforts by NGOs to make donations and provide other forms of improvement. The problems are too deep and too wide to be long term ameliorated by nice ideas behind the donnations. There are very few long term success stories in the decades of relief efforts.

Should we permit the ongoing suffering of large numbers of people because we are afraid of an idea being misused or because we find it distasteful? This seems, to me, to be at least as cruel as implementing the idea.

I am still seeing an unexamined fundemental high value being placed on the right of humans to breed without restriction. The only objection I have seen is that Nazis were involved in racial eugenics and therefore the whole area of discussion is tainted. FYI.... the Nazis were into just about everything mechanical and conceptual. Yet most of the designs and ideas are still active. We even borrowed a lot of Nazi technical developments. So, I call "red herring" on the Nazi/eugenics connection.

There is something about human eugenics that negatively effects some people at a very deep level. I wonder why.