Book review: Transcending the Titanic

Michael Tymn, quite possibly today's foremost writer on 19th century and early 20th century Spiritualism, has a new book out called Transcending the Titanic. It's a brief book, only about 90 pages of text, but it covers a lot of ground. 

The book begins by asking why the Titanic tragedy continues to hold our interest when other disasters like the great San Francisco earthquake have been largely forgotten. One answer may be that the ship was something of a microcosm of humanity, bringing together people from all walks of life and all social stations. Another is the variety of responses from the passengers, ranging from panic to disciplined action to calm resignation. Perhaps another is that the slow foundering of the vessel gave the passengers ample time to face the inevitability of their demise.

Next we are treated to an impressive recreation of the event. Unlike the 1997 movie, which presented relatively few heroic characters and concentrated on the chaos and desperate struggle to survive at any cost, Tymn shows us that many of the passengers behaved courageously, even nobly. Many men gallantly escorted their wives to the lifeboats but would not board even when permitted to do so, considering it wrong to leave the ship while any women or children were yet to be rescued. The fact that many of the boats were only half full is also explained in a reasonable, nonjudgmental way: at first, many passengers simply refused to embark on the lifeboats, either because they believed the ship would not really sink or because the boats themselves looked too dangerous. As a result, the crew was forced to drop some of the boats into the water with only a handful of people aboard. 

But the book's real focus is not the tragedy itself but the paranormal, spiritual, or transcendent elements of the story. In later chapters we read of possible premonitions of the sinking; some of these are poorly documented or can be explained by coincidence, while others are more intriguing. And we learn of evidence that a few of the deceased passengers were able to communicate via mediums with the living. Among these communicators, perhaps the most illustrious was William T. Stead, the real hero of Tymn's story.

Stead was a larger-than-life journalist and social activist who was converted to Spiritualism after studying the evidence, and who became a channeler (via automatic writing) himself. Stead, who never did anything halfway, endangered his reputation by championing the cause of Spiritualism and even publishing his channeled scripts under the title Letters from Julia (later retitled After Death: Letters from Julia, and still available in print and ebook form). During the last hours of the doomed voyage, Stead was reported as appearing utterly calm, unfazed by the prospect of death, which he regarded as merely a transition to a better world. 

Very soon after his death, Stead began communicating through mediums, even purportedly materializing in some seances and speaking via direct voice in others. At times Stead apparently brought through other victims of the shipwreck, notably the multimillionaire John Jacob Astor, who had conducted himself with dignity and courage during the crisis, but who (if the communication can be trusted) came to regret his earthly materialistic ambitions when immersed in a higher spiritual reality. "Why are not these things taught in the world?" he is said to have cried out through a medium. "Why did no one ever tell me these things?" 

Despite its brevity, Transcending the Titanic is a remarkably complete book that covers the whole story of the doomed liner and the paranormal activity surrounding its destruction. More than just a recital of facts and claims, it's a thoughtful meditation on life and death, and on the modern tendency to deny and avoid the whole subject of mortality unless it is placed in a safely fictional context. It's well worth a read.

Transcending the Titanic can be purchased on Amazon (US) in both paperback and Kindle editions. 

Comments

[Matt Rouge]

Nice review, as always.

It's true that the Titanic remains quite iconic in our culture. I can't ever remember not knowing about it, even as a little kid.

I think the reasons it remains so are those you stated, as well as one more: it really was a beautiful machine, a true work of art, that was destroyed in the most memorable way when it was first used.

What did you think of the communications from Stead as described in the book? Were they convincing?

[Michael Prescott]

The communications from Stead convinced people who had known him, including his grown daughter. But they might not be convincing to an outside observer, because they were generally philosophical in nature or they relied on direct voice or materialization, which can't be adequately conveyed via the printed page.

Still, the book includes many evidential cases to buttress the general argument that mediums receive detailed, verifiable info. Many of those cases were unknown to me. It seems that the deeper you delve into this area, the more you find startlingly persuasive cases that have been largely forgotten today.

[Alexander1304]

I've read Michael Tymn's "Afterlife Revealed" and will buy this new one as well.But I have a serious question about mediumship now.A lot of literature has been produced about mediumship,but Madame H.P.Blavatsky was critical on Spiritualism,slaiming that spiritualists are not connecting to surviving soul,but to some "lower remnants of personality".Unfortunately I cannot provide link where I found it now,but so the story goes.But on the other hand,there are so much evidence of mediumship...can it ALL be discarded because of Blavatsky's claim?...I doubt it

[Michael Prescott]

I'm not sure how seriously to take anything Blavatsky said. She was debunked by Richard Hodgson decades ago; he found that the mysterious messages that were supposedly materializing out of thin air were actually delivered through a hidden passageway (which Hodgson discovered). She also claimed that thousands of years passed between each earthly incarnation, an idea that contradicts all the evidence for reincarnation that I've seen.

[abcdefg]

Just bought the Kindle versions of both Transcending the Titanic and Letters from Julia.

[Alexander1304]

Yes,Hodgson found that Blavatsky was a fraud,but(copying from wikipedia) "However, in a 1986 press release to the newspapers and leading magazines in Great Britain, Canada and the USA, the same SPR retracted the Hodgson report, after a re-examination of the case by the Fortean psychic Dr. Vernon Harrison, past president of The Royal Photographic Society and formerly Research Manager to Thomas De La Rue, an expert on forgery, as follows: "Madame Blavatsky, co-founder of the Theosophical Society, was unjustly condemned, new study concludes."

But anyway,I think best cases of mental mediumship are good enough to be convincing in their authentity.That's at least what I think

[Bruce Siegel]

"Perhaps another [reason the Titanic story captivates us] is that the slow foundering of the vessel gave the passengers ample time to face the inevitability of their demise."

Good point. I vote for that. And it's born out, for one thing, by Cameron's film, most of which takes place during the period of time when people begin to suspect that they, and/or their loves ones, might well die. We see this disaster happen in slow motion.

There's that well-known 19th century book by Albert Heim about mountain climbers' falls, and what they experience on the way down. Often, they had mystical and near-death-like experiences.

With the Titanic story, that period of falling is extended not to seconds or even minutes, but hours. What can be more compelling than that state of mind when you're hovering between life and death? (Whether or not anything paranormal is going on.)

"But the book's real focus is not the tragedy itself but the paranormal, spiritual, or transcendent elements of the story"

I'm not often enthusiastic about Hollywood blockbusters. Far from it. But Titanic is, perhaps, my favorite movie. (You're trying to talk about a book, and I'm bringing a movie into this--sorry about that!) It has always struck me as a film that's profoundly spiritual.

There's that wonderful sequence where the contrast is made between the ever-so-polite but lifeless conversation of the rich folk upstairs, and the joyous, rollicking, deeply-felt party and dance below deck, amongst the poor.

The materialistic approach vs the spiritual--it couldn't be laid out more plainly.

And then there's the powerful theme, throughout the movie, of separation. It's played out in more ways than I care to detail.

Which reminds me: I agree with what you said on another thread, Michael--the final scene is not Rose's dream, but her dying and entering into the afterlife realm, and being re-united with all her people. It is, as you say, similar to the last scene in The Game--a beautiful coming-together of everyone who played a part in the life-story.

As you mentioned, I don't think the Billy Zane character (the villain) was in that final scene. Though that would have been a nice touch, and a profound one, don't you think?

By the way, I'm about a third of the way through the Moorjani book, Dying to be Me. It's a real treat, as I suspected it would be. I think it may well become a very big seller, and deservedly.

As someone said (here, I think), she offers many of the same profound insights as Nancy Danison, whose book, as you know, states my own spiritual perspective pretty accurately. Moorjani may be easier for some readers to empathize with though, because, as I was surprised to learn, some folks are put off by aspects of Danison's persona.

[Kathleen]

But does this book solve the mystery of Patrick Crawley?

[Michael Prescott]

"As you mentioned, I don't think the Billy Zane character (the villain) was in that final scene. Though that would have been a nice touch, and a profound one, don't you think?"

Yes, but maybe a little too complex for that film. Another movie, the Sally Field drama Places in the Heart, does do essentially what you suggested in its mystical ending.

[Douglas]

The titanic holds a special captivation for us due to the reasons described above - it is both a perfect microcosm of western society at the turn of the 20th century, and it is a perfect microcosm of humanity in general, regardless of any particular time period - this is why the 1997 movie was so popular from America to Japan, regardless of culture.

The individual human dramas that play out in slow motion on that fateful night are incredible in their own right - all the best, and worst, aspects of human nature manifested on that night.

Added to that the setting: the largest moving object every created (1000 gross tons heavier than its near twin Olympic), and even more luxurious.

Cruise liners, even the best ones in the world today, just don't have the same class and sense of style that ships of this time had - and titanic was the cream of them all.

With all that going on, you just can't keep Titanic down!

(sorry couldnt resist).

[Douglas]

btw when i say the largest moving object ever created, I do mean, of course, *at that time*.

[j9]

Off topic. I have my reading with Georgia O'Conner today at 2:00. I will give you the details later.

[Ray]

I will be very interested to hear how your session goes J9. I had my second and probably last reading 2 weeks ago. My friend just lost her dad so I paid for a full hour and gave her most of the time. During my part of the session, my dad once again came through. I wasn't impressed this time with the evidence but he did mention that he has been around my house lately and asked if I noticed and I replied that I did not notice anything unusual. "He" suggested that I watch out because he wanted to make his presence known. I was furiously writing notes for my friends part of the session for her and while I was doing so, a heavy glass on the table full of water suddenly moved slowly and in a control manner about 7-8 inches across the table. All three of us sitting at the table saw it.

Naturally I tried to debunk this so I figured it could have been moisture under the glass that made it slide or the table wasn't level. I tried for 2 weeks to replicate the glass moving by using as much water that was in the glass at the time and even put some water on the table to help it glide along...nothing no movement at all in 2 weeks and I never had a glass move on that table before. The wood is sort of grainy so it would be much more difficult. I also took out a leveler and the table is perfectly level.

On top of that, my aunt called my mother the other day to tell her that something strange happened to her the other day. She said she was heading to bed and she was tapped twice on the shoulder and heard a voice which sounded like my father say, "Thank you for praying for me every night." My aunt does pray for my father every night and I never heard her have any sort of paranormal experience before this. In addition, she did not even know about my reading with my dad because the three of us did not tell anyone about the glass moving because it certainly exceeded my boogle threshold so I doubt she subconsciously made it up. She was legitametly shocked when I then opened up to her about the glass indicent after she explained what happened to her. I think my skepticism went from 25% to about 10% after this experience but yet I somehow still remain full satisfied which is good because I want to continue to do research and learn. I do not think I will use Georgia's services again because I no longer need them, but overall it certainly helped my personal belief based on the evidence provided.

[j9]

Thanks Ray, I will let you know. I am a little peeved because I have a student taking a trimester exam around that time and I am going to be nervous about my privacy and where to put him and will he be wanting to ask me questions while I'm on the phone, but I'm going to try to be as calm as possible and set up the best situation I can. I'll write a little later.

[j9]

@Ray, it looks like I got stood up. They asked for payment through paypal which I sent, but it's like an regular check, so I wonder whether she isn't calling because she feels like she hasn't been paid yet. She takes personal checks, so I don't see how this would be any different. She didn't write to say that she hadn't received payment. I just left her a message asking if there had been some sort of mix up.

[j9]

@Ray, ok, she called late. Nothing really earth shaking except that she mentioned my daughter by name and said she felt my son also had a name that began with an e, which is true. But I'm sure you could get that much off the internet. She also said it was my mother's mother asking about them, but she isn't dead, she has demensia, but she isn't dead. Georgia said that often happens because they usually aren't in their minds most of the time.

She also said my grandfather asked "how are my numbers?" Georgia thought he was talking about dance numbers, but I teach math, so that could be it.

She also mentioned my niece by name. and my cousin who was young when she died wanted to tell us that she felt the Autopsy was a scam and that she was poisoned. There was some controversy over how she died, as it was sudden (they called it like crib death at 17). There was some talk of diet pills.

Anyway, I didn't think anything she said was too specific, or specific enough to knock my socks off. What are you gonna do?

[Ray]

Thanks j9 name hits are pretty good. Do you think there is any way she could have found this out via Facebook or other social networking sites? In other words is it easy to trace your relatives by looking at your profiles friends etc on these sites?

[Michael Prescott]

"She also mentioned my niece by name. and my cousin who was young when she died wanted to tell us that she felt the Autopsy was a scam and that she was poisoned. There was some controversy over how she died, as it was sudden (they called it like crib death at 17). There was some talk of diet pills."

That sounds pretty evidential to me. How many people have a cousin whose death was controversial and could have been resolved by an autopsy?

[chrisb]

Totally off topic, but I thought you might be interested. On Saturday I saw a concert of Byzantine hymns sung by the group VocaMe, one of whose members, Gerlinde Sämann, is blind. On her website (gerlinde-saemann.de) she says:

"The question I'm most often asked is how I manage when I can't see the conductor."

"I feel him. That's not easy to explain. But it works. Through feeling the energy of movement, through the breath, and through the invisibility that seems to bind us together, very finely and precisely."

Now, there are lots of ways to explain this feeling she talks about, but I found her way of expressing quite touching and beautiful.

[j9]

@Ray, hi, if you were to google my real name, you would find my teacher page and an article from a parenting magazine, mentioning both my children and my husbands name (that also came up), so yeah, those things easily found, especially that I teach math and that I have two children whose names begin with E. She mentioned Emma specifically, the boy she said begins with E.

@Michael,

Michael, it is hard to explain, she died with prom tickets on her dresser and an autopsy was only done on the heart and the parents refused the rest. Georgia said "she is angry about the way she died and that she was poisoned" I said there was talk about diet pills and she said "she says to tell those people to piss off" and that Denise seemed to have quite an attitude.

But I lead her to denise because I asked specifically if she saw a younger relative (although she has been dead now almost 25 years, much longer than the 17 she was alive) and I asked if she wanted to tell her sister something and she said "Denise wants to say thanks for taking care of everything after she died" and, as much as I love her, she (her sister) was 13 at the time and the only thing her sister took care of was being catatonic, sleeping with the x boyfriend a few years later and giving us all a lot of heartache trying to take care of her for about 10 years afterwards (and sometimes still)

Also, although she mentioned my niece by name, she said she felt she was disabled mentally and she is not. so what do I know? I would have like to have heard a bit more things that don't seem like guessing.

If you google me, you get my married and maiden name. Not too many of us around in the Long Island area. I don't like to think fraud, but there is no one in the US with my married name, and not a word was spoken about my husband's family. There would be nothing to be found as they changed their name when they moved internationally to several countries in the 70's.

In all, although it seems like good hits, and some solid names, I wish I was more impressed.

Oh well, maybe next time.

[sbu]

Why not book her under a false name to rule out cheating?

[Matt Rouge]

J9,

One possibility is that she could be just a mediocre medium instead of a total fraud.

Cheers,

Matt

[Ray]

@sbu

I tried that but you have to enter at least your real name for credit card Payment for services maybe if you could get a relative to front the money...

[j9]

I would really like to go see George Anderson, as he is also local to me. But he is very, very expensive. You also have to give your name, but the say that George has no prior knowledge of you. I saw a documentary on him once and they hooked him up to all sorts of electrodes while he was "doing his thing" and they were shocked at the brain activity that was going on...something about never seeing any patterns like that before and not normal brain activity, but this was in the 70's.

Thanks for all the support and advice.

[Ray]

I think it is wonderful that we have a place like this to get together exchange ideas and experiences freely without ridicule. I really do appreciate the insights and sharing as it helps me to continue to learn such an elusive topic

[Ray]

@j9

I wonder if that level of brain activity is what causes the fatigue associated with performing readings that dr rubenstein frequently refers to in his book?

If you listen to the interview from skeptiko that alex did with the creator of the God Helmet there is a significant increase in brain waive activity during lucid dreaming, mediumship etc.

[Douglas]

Again, for those who havent already, I really recommend you read Ian Rubenstein's book as it is from the perspective of a (somewhat skeptical) medium.

I think this may be useful because it allows us non mediums an insight into how mediums work and the problems that can arise - once thing you find out is that it isnt easy!

You need to train on a continual basis, and you have good days and bad days, like in any vocation.

I think it might be useful to get a perspective from an actual medium as it appears to be very easy to dismiss a medium just because a particular reading on a particular day wasnt good enough for you.

Unfotunately, it doesnt really work on a 100% on demand basis. Mediums try because they feel compelled to get the messages out, but they get just as frustrated as you when they have a mediocre day with low hits.

[j9]

Thanks, Douglas. I will. The last medium I went to locally, if you read it here, couldn't read for me at all and told me so and didn't charge me a dime even though he spent a good bit of time with me. I'm not saying it is all fraud, I had a lot of real-time dreams in college that were happening at that moment to people I loved. So, I do think there is more going on than meets the eye in many cases when we talk about psi and mediumship (is that a word, lol), but it is disappointing when you want so badly to here something that will make you really, truly believe and it doesn't come.

I will keep searching, researching, and learning, as do we all.

xo

[Bruce Siegel]

"One possibility is that she could be just a mediocre medium instead of a total fraud."

Or a good medium having one of her less-impressive at-bats. To make a baseball analogy here, the best hitters, who hit around .300, have a 70% failure rate.

[Bruce Siegel]

"If you listen to the interview from skeptiko that alex did with the creator of the God Helmet "

Speaking of which, may I point out two things of interest on the Skeptiko forum? One is a brand-new interview with Ian Rubenstein posted today.

And the other is a thread I started called the "Ultimate Explanation for Psi." I'd love to get some feedback on my little essay from Michael, Matt, and others.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce, you got link for that? I'll be happy to take a look.

And you are right: A very good medium can have bad days, bad moments, or just not connect with a particular sitter (or the spirits with which the sitter desires to communicate).

I act as a medium sometimes when the spirits are really beating down the door, so I know how clear or vague the impressions can be. I think there are certain people who can turn on their mediumistic abilities *most* of the time, but I think it's a gamble the majority of mediums should not take.

[Bruce Siegel]

Here it is, Matt: http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3327-ultimate-explanation-psi.html

"I act as a medium sometimes when the spirits are really beating down the door, so I know how clear or vague the impressions can be."

So you're saying that the strength of the "signal" is determined, in part, by how insistent the spirits are about making contact?

"I think there are certain people who can turn on their mediumistic abilities *most* of the time, but I think it's a gamble the majority of mediums should not take."

Though if you do it for a living, it must be hard to say "sorry, nothing's happening today." Or do we know of professionals who will forfeit their fee if they feel they're not making contact?

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

So you're saying that the strength of the "signal" is determined, in part, by how insistent the spirits are about making contact?

Absolutely. It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes the demand is so strong that I *have* to say something. I had not thought of myself as a medium at all. The first time it happened was when a friend's grandmother came through, and she was so insistent that I had to help her communicate.

Though if you do it for a living, it must be hard to say "sorry, nothing's happening today." Or do we know of professionals who will forfeit their fee if they feel they're not making contact?

One is mentioned in this thread by j9.

I think that's a problem if you charge money as a medium or psychic. If you're very consistent, then fine, but what if you are having an off day? Do you close up shop? I think the temptation is to "stretch" your powers or even cheat. It's pretty clear that certain materialization mediums who had genuine powers gave into this temptation.

I saw on the front page of Skeptiko when I went to look for your thread that someone was "debunking" John Edward. I think he has genuine abilities and has gotten *huge* hits, but, man, I really *really* think he's "stretching" a lot of the time.

As a psychic, I don't dig for names. They actually come to me quite a bit--something that tells me my abilities are genuine, since that's something you can't fake. I did a reading for a friend via chat yesterday, and I got that a blonde in her hospital was named Beth (I said "Betty" or "Beth") and I was exactly right, and I guessed "Danielle" or a "D name" for someone else, and I was right about the "D" (it was a very unusual name). I guessed "Carol" for someone else, and it was "Karen." I am often exactly right or very close. Sometimes dead wrong of course.

But I would be *ashamed* to go digging as Edward does: "I'm getting an R name, or maybe an M." That is crap. Sometimes the impressions *are* vague. In the case of "Danielle" above, my impression was not "Danielle" exactly but something somewhat close to that. I was not stretching to get any kind of impression but was just working with what I had.

But you're stretching when you try to leverage any vague, undefined impression that comes your way. When you're fishing and doing stuff that really does look like cold reading, even if you are sincerely working from genuine but weak impressions.

I think Edward does that a lot, and it is not good mediumship.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

OK, I read your post on Skeptiko.

If I understand correctly, the ultimate explanation for psi is that, ultimately, we are all connected to everything via Source.

I'll tell you how my impressions feel and try to relate it to your explanation.

First my mediumistic impressions are completely different from what I'm about to describe. I feel impressions coming from the Afterlife and I "see" the energy and sometimes the person in the Afterlife. It is a bright, pure, happy vibration that is unmistakable.

For my "regular" psychic impressions, I peer into what I perceive to be the Astral medium. A kind of spiritual aether, if you will. You know how when you close your eyes and look into the darkness, you can see things. It is a lot like that, but it can be any type of impression. A sound, image, feeling, or just a sense that a particular fact is true. I often feel the connection between energies. One of the easiest things for me to see is who people's families are. I am almost *never* wrong when I start talking about someone's brothers and sisters. For example, if I start talking about someone's sister, I am almost never just told, "I don't have a sister."

When I'm in the "zone," as I was with my friend this morning, the information just comes and comes. I can get very detailed pictures and stories.

Now, how does this relate to your explanation? My feeling when using psi is that I am following paths or trails in Reality.

I think your explanation may be true, but not quite in the sense you think. I think there is Source, but Source purposely creates a void (i.e., retracts the plenum of it-Self) in which this world can exist. This void is porous, however--imagine a dike with near-infinite pressure behind it. And it is easier for certain kinds of energy to pass through it that is based on connections. For example, I am not assailed at all times by random impressions, but when I talk to a person, I am connected to him or her and the impressions start coming through.

So, to me, psi is finding the light of connection in the darkness of disconnection. To your theory I would add the vast sea of disconnection through which we must peer in order to find connection.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Here is where I take issue. Maybe I can explain it better. You wrote:

But if everything and everyone in existence is one infinitely large entity that is temporarily subdivided for what we might call "recreational" purposes, then psi becomes incredibly simple: I'm able to read your mind because it's MY mind, too.

Then question then also is why *can't* I read your mind?

You mentioned Plotinus in the thread too. I *do* get the oneness thing. I think of that as a New Age truism--All is One--and I mean no disrespect by calling it a truism. I believe it.

But granted that All is One, why are we not omniscient? Why aren't our minds smashed together right now, unified in perfect communication?

I think the reason is that we are Oneness that has decided to be a bunch of pieces and has very effectively accomplished that. I have a theory of why that is the case. In short, I think the Oneness of the Plenum has to come from the Oneness of the Void (and, paradoxically, vice versa), so we are Plenum, Void, and everything in between. Kindof how it is stated in the Emerald Tablet.

But we are creatures of will, and we can try to go to the Void (Buddhist meditation), or we can try to go to the Plenum. I think psi is pushing the mind toward the Plenum, but the way is difficult, and that is why these connections form circuits that make it easier.

[j9]

Off topic, but I feel this movement is very important. Watch this video and you will see how amazing it is that if you get enough people organized, you can help with this trajedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

It's about the Uganda child killer and kidnapper Kony.

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, thanks for reading and responding.

I get the feeling you're stressing that we disagree, or that I'm somehow missing a piece of the puzzle, but I'm not sure why. Seems to me we're saying the same thing.

"But granted that All is One, why are we not omniscient? Why aren't our minds smashed together right now, unified in perfect communication?"

That's the same point I make at the end:

"What needs explaining is the amnesia that makes psi seem so amazing in the first place."

You say:

"I think the reason is that we are Oneness that has decided to be a bunch of pieces and has very effectively accomplished that."

Absolutely! In my article I'm stressing the oneness part, because that's what explains psi. But I do mention the splitting-off aspect by using the Danison quote:

"Source so loved itself, and that little part of itself that became me, that it allowed me to venture out and experience this illusion of having a separate identity--of being a separate person. Of having all these lives, and all these experiences, and all these wonders, and all these loves . . . . And then Source brought me back into itself."

So where's the disagreement, or the misunderstanding on my part?

Thanks for your explanation of the mediumship questions. I agree that it would be a really good thing if mediums would just come out and say when they're having a hard time, instead of using various tricks of the trade to try to cover that fact.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

So where's the disagreement, or the misunderstanding on my part?

Indeed, had I read and responded more carefully, I probably could have stated my response more in terms of agreement than disagreement. But I also kinda wanted a debate. It's been awhile. :) (And I mean on this blog, not just with you.)

You wrote:

What needs explaining is the amnesia that makes psi seem so amazing in the first place.

I don't really buy into Danison's "Source so loved itself" (which sounds to me like a distorted version of "God so loved the world," etc.--it's her stuff like this that tends to rub me the wrong way) explication of the origin of All.

I don't think that there was this ball of light and omniscience that "decided" to break itself up to learn "separation," as our friend often likes to put it here.

Rather, I think we came from the Void of infinite potential, and we through our lives are fulfilling that potential and helping to "build" the Plenum.

Now, since the Plenum itself is outside of time, then what's the difference? The difference is that the Plenum is only the Plenum by *means* of eternity, so to speak. I.e., it uses eternity to become the Plenum, since it is dependent on everything in it *within* the scope of time to compose it.

It's a philosophical difference, but an important one, I think. What I want to avoid is the notion of an eternal God that is eternally all-powerful and managing things, including its "separateness." I want to avoid this since I think it gives people a wrong impression of how things work in the world and false expectations. For example, I think the Plenum "works out" the problem of evil through all our actions throughout history (and anything else that happens in the physical universe or in other dimensions, etc.). Whereas, I think the problem of evil *is* a real problem for the view of a top-down God who simply could have refused to let evil be in the first place.

So how does this relate to psi? I think separateness and thus the "amnesia" that blocks most psi is a similar problem in a top-down God/Source universe. I think it is much less of a problem in the bottom-up type Plenum, since omniscience is the result of our actions and not something that needs to be wiped away in order for us to be "separate."

Ugh, I could write this 50x better, but I'd have to sit down and write a book, which I may indeed do someday. Maybe in 20 years or so. :)

[Bruce Siegel]

"I don't think that there was this ball of light and omniscience that "decided" to break itself up to learn "separation," as our friend often likes to put it here."

I don't think it's as simple as wanting to learn separation, as if it were a school subject to be passed or a moral challenge that makes us more worthy. But for better or worse, I am convinced that there is indeed a One, a Source, a God, and that it has chosen to partition itself into an infinite array of "smaller" entities.

(Smaller is in quotes, because each of those subdivisions has the potential to experience--even to be--the whole.)

And the reason I'm convinced is because the concept has been proven to me, again and again, through the one thing I myself find persuasive--experience. My own, as well as the experience of people I trust.

I know there are many people for whom this sort of argument doesn't wash, but I can live with that.

Charles Tart has a concept he refers to as "state-specific knowledge". Certain things can only be grasped, he says, while the seeker is in a specific state of consciousness. And I've had experiences, while in altered states, that have so convinced me of the fundamental truth of oneness, that it would take some equally persuasive experiences to make me think otherwise.

"Whereas, I think the problem of evil *is* a real problem for the view of a top-down God who simply could have refused to let evil be in the first place."

But God didn't refuse to let evil be. He invented it. Evil is the name we give to the universal forces that make the partitioning of God's oneness possible.

"I think it is much less of a problem in the bottom-up type Plenum, since omniscience is the result of our actions and not something that needs to be wiped away in order for us to be "separate."

I don't see why it's any more likely that omniscience is created out of nothing (which is ultimately what has to happen in what you call a bottom-up arrangement), than that it's the default state that has to be temporarily surrendered so the games can begin.

Now you might ask, is it possible that I and my fellow experiencers--the ones with whom I feel such empathy--might all be deluded?

Yes, it is. Decades spent as a committed atheist have shown me that a feeling of certainty is not necessarily to be trusted.

But there's another possibility, too--that ALL hypotheses are true (in some way that's hard to fathom while we live in the physical plane). I know this doesn't seem to make much sense on the surface, but it's a notion I've been considering of late.

Sort of like saying that both Democrats and Republicans are equally right. While at some level that's hard for me to swallow, it's also difficult to understand how the truth could be as simple as the notion that half this country is crazy while the other half is sane.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Cool. The debate is ON! :)

But for better or worse, I am convinced that there is indeed a One, a Source, a God, and that it has chosen to partition itself into an infinite array of "smaller" entities.

And the reason I'm convinced is because the concept has been proven to me, again and again, through the one thing I myself find persuasive--experience. My own, as well as the experience of people I trust.

Well, experience can't hand you a complete philosophy, unless you claim revelation.

I believe that you have experienced God/One/Source. But did your experiences show you that the partitioning was a *fact*, and did they show you how such partitioning *works*? Those are different matters.

Charles Tart has a concept he refers to as "state-specific knowledge". Certain things can only be grasped, he says, while the seeker is in a specific state of consciousness. And I've had experiences, while in altered states, that have so convinced me of the fundamental truth of oneness, that it would take some equally persuasive experiences to make me think otherwise.

I think the trouble is that it is quite difficult to translate those experiences into words that are useful in our world--words that really make a difference. It's to the point where "All is One" is a kind of hippie cliche. The reason that it's turned into a joke is that the hippies, being naive, thought that perceiving the truth that we are all one would change the world somehow because--well, can't everyone just SEE?

The trouble is that the knowledge that "All is One" doesn't really help us here at all.

Looked at on another level, although it is true that "All is One," it is not also true that "My computer and I are One." I am sitting here, typing on my laptop. Even though "All is One," may be a great spiritual truth, but there is no truth to be had in "My computer and I are one." There is no insight there. If my hard drive crashes, then our Oneness still can't help.

I do believe in Oneness myself, but I don't see Oneness as a "God" or "Source." I see oneness as the ultimate state of the universe in which all contradictions and incompleteness have been resolved. IOW, per Godel's theorem, in which no mathematical system can be both non-contradictory and complete. But the universe has all of infinity/eternity in which to accomplish this.

But God didn't refuse to let evil be. He invented it. Evil is the name we give to the universal forces that make the partitioning of God's oneness possible.

I'd need more of an explanation in order for this to make sense to me. The words don't really conjure an image that computes for me.

I was just reading about and watching documentaries on the Cambodian genocide. It was a reminder of how *evil* evil really is. Those guys did stuff that made the Nazis look like amateurs.

So, yes, I find it hard to imagine there is a single being that is OK with things like that. That could prevent them but has "reasons" why it doesn't.

I don't see why it's any more likely that omniscience is created out of nothing (which is ultimately what has to happen in what you call a bottom-up arrangement), than that it's the default state that has to be temporarily surrendered so the games can begin.

I don't think that there is such a thing as "nothing." The Void is not nothing--it is simple What Is without instantiations. There are still the rules of logic and mathematics which are not arbitrary creations (another reason why I think a monotheistic "God," at least in the traditional sense cannot be true, since such a God cannot alter the truths of mathematics but must be subordinate to them).

Now you might ask, is it possible that I and my fellow experiencers--the ones with whom I feel such empathy--might all be deluded?

Yes, it is. Decades spent as a committed atheist have shown me that a feeling of certainty is not necessarily to be trusted.

I think the Universe accommodates a lot of odd and incongruous things. For example, my bet is that the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima really happened and was *not* a mass delusion, and yet I sure as heck don't believe that what Catholics say about the Virgin Mary is true. Another example: for the most part, what people experience in NDEs jibes with my picture of how the Universe works, but now and again there will be someone who says stuff that makes no sense at all to me. I do not deduce that they are wrong simply because I can't fit their experience into my worldview.

As to your experience of Oneness, I don't doubt that at all. I actually think that it is one way of experiencing or feeling the Universe, and I think it's a profound and true way.

My profound experiences have not been of Oneness but have been of non-duality--more like the satori of Buddhism. Now how do I fit that into the big picture we're talking about here? I don't know. That's why it's going to take 20 more years to write my book on this.

But there's another possibility, too--that ALL hypotheses are true (in some way that's hard to fathom while we live in the physical plane). I know this doesn't seem to make much sense on the surface, but it's a notion I've been considering of late.

Yes, I've pondered along these lines. I don't like the idea, so I try to disprove it in my mind, and I do have some good arguments against it. But I don't know.

I have no illusions about having any tremendously big thoughts to offer here--yet. Many have tried to explain the big picture; many have failed. A think a Course in Miracles is worse than poppycock, and I read a bit of Ken Wilbur, and my eyes just glaze over. I think we'll know when we've succeeded in describing the big picture accurately when we've come up with something with *practical* applications. It will be a system of thought that empowers us, not just a system that feels a little nicer inside the brain.

Sort of like saying that both Democrats and Republicans are equally right. While at some level that's hard for me to swallow, it's also difficult to understand how the truth could be as simple as the notion that half this country is crazy while the other half is sane.

They are crazy. Look at the Nazis and Khmer Rouge. Bad ideas sometimes win, and there are consequences. As for the US, Sinclair Lewis wrote a book on it. :)

[Matt Rouge]

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, it's the Republicans that are crazy, not the Democrats. the Democrats are a bland, boring, not particularly appealing party with few ideas to offer. But that's better than nascent fascism.

[Michael Prescott]

"Watch this video and you will see how amazing it is that if you get enough people organized, you can help with this tragedy."

J9, it's impressive that the Kony video has gone viral - more than 60 million hits so far - but I'm not sure how much good it will do. Kony may not even be in Uganda anymore; there are reports he moved to the Central African Republic some time ago and is hiding out in the dense, uncharted tropical forest. The US has sent 100 "advisors" into Uganda to hunt down Kony, but considering the amount of ground they have to cover, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Kony has kept a low profile lately, and unless he reemerges in a big way, he may be able to stay hidden indefinitely.

[Bruce Siegel]

"my iPod contains my favorite pictures, words, music, and even, you might say, people"

I just thought of a vital addition to that list: tools! Aren't apps really additional hands, legs, eyes, ears, brains?

Yes--my iPod and I ARE one. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

OK--I guess the universe IS a strange place after all. My previous comment somehow got posted before the original post to which it refers, which is a whopper.

Maybe I need to split it into two. I'm going to try that here.

"Cool. The debate is ON! :)"

Don't know if I'm up for a debate, but I do find it hard to resist playing devil's advocate to some of your points. :o)

"Well, experience can't hand you a complete philosophy, unless you claim revelation."

I don't even know what "a complete philosophy" would look like. Reminds me of this comment I saw yesterday on someone's blog:

"Wouldn't any complete explanation of the world have to be coextensive with the world?"

I like that a lot. Reminds me also of the notion that a REALLY good map of the world would need to be as large as the world itself. Isn't that from Alice in Wonderland?

"But did your experiences show you that the partitioning was a *fact*"

Sadly, my experiences in altered states have generally not been as replete with images as many people seem to enjoy. (At least, images that I can remember. There are brief flashes of many more that are lost as soon as I emerge from trance.)

But I'll never forget one vision in particular: I saw the mind of God explode into countless . . . and I'm pausing here because I can't remember the specifics of what emerged from God's head.

But the thrust of that vision was and is clear: the many emerging from the one.

Another image is also memorable. I saw a person playfully hiding behind the trunk of a tree. And these words came into my mind at the same moment: What do you do when there's only one person invited to the party, and you want to have some fun?

And from that visual depiction I knew that the "person" behind the tree trunk was God, and that the answer is: you play hide-and-seek with yourself.

You have to remember that these (and similar) experiences are emblazoned into my memory because they occurred at moments when I was feeling the deepest love/ecstasy imaginable. That says something to me, though I won't be shocked if it means less to others.

[Bruce Siegel]

(continued)

"The trouble is that the knowledge that "All is One" doesn't really help us here at all."

Ahhh, but it can! It can make all the difference in the world. I know that because I know the trajectory of my own life.

"Even though "All is One," may be a great spiritual truth, but there is no truth to be had in "My computer and I are one." "

I was about to agree with you and suggest that we focus instead on living things, and then I thought of something. There are moments when I feel closer to my iPod Touch than to any living being. Remember--besides being a truly magical and beautiful thing in itself, and almost alive (in a sense), my iPod contains my favorite pictures, words, music, and even, you might say, people.

So the notion that my computer and I are one may not be quite as crazy as you suggest. I do have a relationship with it--it's almost a part of me.

(Added later): I just thought of a vital addition to that list: tools! Aren't apps really additional hands, legs, eyes, ears, brains?
Yes--my iPod and I ARE one. :o)

"I do believe in Oneness myself, but I don't see Oneness as a "God" or "Source." I see oneness as the ultimate state of the universe in which all contradictions and incompleteness have been resolved.. . . But the universe has all of infinity/eternity in which to accomplish this."

That seems to be where we differ. You see oneness as the goal, I see it as the goal AND the starting place.

"I'd need more of an explanation in order for this to make sense to me. The words don't really conjure an image that computes for me."

Instead of evil, think of amnesia. Our existence as separate selves is made possible by what we agree to temporarily forget.

Evil is an extreme form (or result) of forgetting.

"I don't think that there is such a thing as "nothing." The Void is not nothing--it is simple What Is without instantiations. "

I agree!

"My profound experiences have not been of Oneness but have been of non-duality--more like the satori of Buddhism. Now how do I fit that into the big picture we're talking about here?"

Oneness and non-duality sound pretty darned close to me!

"and I read a bit of Ken Wilbur, and my eyes just glaze over."

He's too word-dense for my taste, though one of my heroes--Grof--speaks very highly of him.

"it's the Republicans that are crazy"

No comment. I hear there are spies from the Right who hang out around these parts. :o)

[Matt Rouge]

OK--I guess the universe IS a strange place after all. My previous comment somehow got posted before the original post to which it refers, which is a whopper.

Signs are everywhere!

Don't know if I'm up for a debate, but I do find it hard to resist playing devil's advocate to some of your points. :o)

Good enough. :)

"Wouldn't any complete explanation of the world have to be coextensive with the world?"

I like that a lot. Reminds me also of the notion that a REALLY good map of the world would need to be as large as the world itself. Isn't that from Alice in Wonderland?

This states the problem exactly! There is not enough of "us" to pay attention to all of "us."

E.g., I was in the local art center today, and there are photographs on the wall of people doing art. Year after year, art is created. Some is crap, some is great, but there are not enough people to "pay attention" to it all.

Now, I believe in the Akashic records (i.e., that information is never destroyed), but the fact that information is accessible doesn't mean that there is an entity paying attention to it.

I do meditation. Almost every time, memories bubble up that I had not accessed in a very long time. It is weird what's in there and what comes through. Sometimes there is a lot of emotion attached to the memories, and they're hard to handle. It's even necessarily deep stuff. I remember Christmas when I was a kid and begin to travel back into that world, and it's like--sorry!--I can't handle all of the info, emotion-wise, time-wise, etc.-wise. The 40-year-old-self only has so much bandwidth for the 6-year-old self.

This is a personal experience of Void. An experience of Self reveals the non-experience of the Self.

So yes, you can try to make the map, pay attention on an even great scale, but the Void is still there.

But I'll never forget one vision in particular: I saw the mind of God explode into countless . . . and I'm pausing here because I can't remember the specifics of what emerged from God's head.

But the thrust of that vision was and is clear: the many emerging from the one.

Right.

Another image is also memorable. I saw a person playfully hiding behind the trunk of a tree. And these words came into my mind at the same moment: What do you do when there's only one person invited to the party, and you want to have some fun?

And from that visual depiction I knew that the "person" behind the tree trunk was God, and that the answer is: you play hide-and-seek with yourself.

These are both cool.

You have to remember that these (and similar) experiences are emblazoned into my memory because they occurred at moments when I was feeling the deepest love/ecstasy imaginable. That says something to me, though I won't be shocked if it means less to others.

Love *is* meaningful. It is the most powerful thing in the Universe.

"The trouble is that the knowledge that "All is One" doesn't really help us here at all."

Ahhh, but it can! It can make all the difference in the world. I know that because I know the trajectory of my own life.

Certainly, one can have an experience that inspires or helps. But I'm talking about a practical spiritual application of "All is One." I haven't seen that yet.

By the way, I prefer the formulation "All things are connected," which I find to be more literally accurate and more philosophically useful. Everything in the Universe does have some connection to everything else, but saying so preserves the respect for Void, I think. For example, I have ancestors in ancient Europe. I don't know who they are (so that is Void from my current perspective), but I know that factually they existed and that we are connected. To say that me and those ancient ancestors are "One" would seem to imply things that do not, on a practical level, seem to be so. I.e., we don't know each other, we are not in communication with each other, and so on.

"Even though "All is One," may be a great spiritual truth, but there is no truth to be had in "My computer and I are one."

I was about to agree with you and suggest that we focus instead on living things, and then I thought of something. There are moments when I feel closer to my iPod Touch than to any living being. Remember--besides being a truly magical and beautiful thing in itself, and almost alive (in a sense), my iPod contains my favorite pictures, words, music, and even, you might say, people.

So the notion that my computer and I are one may not be quite as crazy as you suggest. I do have a relationship with it--it's almost a part of me.

But there's a lot of Void even between the Self and the parts of the body. I am amazed at how my cells and organs do their work without any prompting or knowledge on my part. I don't even feel "One" with my current body! But I certainly feel "connected." The same line of thinking would apply to the iPod. Yet, as you suggest, we can become extremely connected with many different things.

That seems to be where we differ. You see oneness as the goal, I see it as the goal AND the starting place.

It's a little different, since I think the expectations we create through our words should reflect are experience in the real world. For example, I don't like Christianity's description of God as a loving father. If my child were ever in mortal danger and I could save her, I absolutely would. I'd spend any amount of money and would give up my own life without a second thought. I think any loving father would do that for his child. But God is the loving father that chooses not to save us, though presumably able. Could there still be a good God out there? Yes, but it's a God that doesn't behave like a "loving father."

And so it is with "Oneness." If we see the origin of the Universe as a unitary, omniscient, omnipotent being, then we have a lot of odd behavior to explain. So much so that it's probably easier just to think in other terms. I thus try to choose different words that reflect how we normally talk about things.

Instead of evil, think of amnesia. Our existence as separate selves is made possible by what we agree to temporarily forget.

Evil is an extreme form (or result) of forgetting.

I don't believe that, since, when I look at the depredations of Genghis Khan, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many others, I see a *positive* malice at work and not merely a "whoops! I forgot how to be nice and loving* kind of thing at work.

Oneness and non-duality sound pretty darned close to me!

In my experiences, I did not feel "connected to all things," which is what I think a Oneness experience would be like. Rather, I saw "that which exists in opposition to nothing," which is a mind-blowing thing that transcends all categories and concepts. It also transcends One/many. But, at the same time, it's a state that spits you out right away, since, in there, there is no knower to know it. I'm not even sure it has any real practical application!

He's too word-dense for my taste, though one of my heroes--Grof--speaks very highly of him.

I just haven't found anything in his writings that helps me think or live easier. Ultimately, I think that's what philosophy should do.

No comment. I hear there are spies from the Right who hang out around these parts. :o)

There are a lot of good Republicans who want good things for the country. But right now there are just too many on the right who have a negative and fantasy-based vision for this country.

[Matt Rouge]

Yo, is the debate OVER? :)

[Bruce Siegel]

Yo, is the debate OVER? :)

Nope--got more to say, but I got waylaid by other stuff. And lost a whole hour to DST. :o) Maybe later today or tomorrow.

[Matt Rouge]

Cool man, thanks!

[no one]

Hope you guys don't mind if I chip in here.

I have certainly experienced the oneness of all things - or at least that's what I would call what I experienced.

However, I don't think that it is a useful state of being for humans in their daily lives. The oneness, it seems to me, is only true at a level that is way deeper than our humaness. When we are going about our human lives i think the understanding, or the sense of, interconnectedness (separate but connected) is more useful and is more related to the occurrence of psi.

At the level of total oneness there is no psi because there is no one to send and no one to receive.

At the level of separate but connected, *I* can receive information from *you*.

Ditto the problem of evil. If all is oneness then there is no one doing anything to anyone. If separate, but connected, then I can do bad things to you and I can appreciate - even get off on in my evil way - the pain I am causing you and the effects of my evil can spread; which, being evil, I want it to.

My understanding is that we can experience many many levels of perception, with oneness being one of the possibilities. All of these experiences are "real". However, none of them are THE Ultimate reality. Rather they are option which have varying degrees of usefulness at the time and for our lives generally. As an aside there are perceptual realities that are outside of the human ability to perceive. The form of the human sould is too restrictive a lense to get at these.

[no one]

ughhh...form of the human soul........I always catch myself putting a 'd' on the end of soul. Weird.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Agree with everything you wrote. Thanks!

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, I started to reply to your last comment, but I have a problem: I don't know exactly what you mean by "void," and you use the word a lot.

I thought you were using it in the classic sense of an infinite, formless potential, but the way you use it in the following sentence, it almost seems like you're referring to the spiritual amnesia I talk about:

"For example, I have ancestors in ancient Europe. I don't know who they are (so that is Void from my current perspective), but I know that factually they existed and that we are connected."

Could you clarify?

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Sure.

I am basically talking about sunyata in the Buddhist sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

But I'm not a Buddhist and I don't necessarily try to use the term in an orthodox manner.

I am fascinated by "nots" and "lacks." Imagine a room with music playing. There are many different ways to relate to the music. No one in the room. Party going on in the room; no one paying attention. People carefully listening to the music. Musicologists listening to the music. Various levels of attention and awareness, yet presumably never perfect awareness or understanding (at least beyond a certain level of complexity). So we can have these voids on a relative basis.

I am fascinated by the fact that I am in a body the operation of I am only slightly aware and which I barely understand. All the cells dividing and doing their metabolic thing, with this consciousness floating on top. And I can introspect, yet I barely know the content of my own mind. The interface is certainly weak (to look for a memory: uh, just kinda sorta "dig" for it. Efficient!).

Not to denigrate consciousness. It is a rich and beautiful thing. It is tremendous in scope. Yet its limits are... huge.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Various levels of attention and awareness, yet presumably never perfect awareness or understanding (at least beyond a certain level of complexity) . . .I am fascinated by the fact that I am in a body the operation of I am only slightly aware and which I barely understand. "

I *thought* you were using "void" " in that way, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. It seems to me you're describing what I was talking about earlier--the amnesia or unknowingness that God has devised in order to make the entire cosmic scheme possible. He forgets himself so that he can have the joy of re-discovering himself.

Isn't that the drama we re-enact every time we come into a body and then leave it? Forgetting, and then remembering?

"Love *is* meaningful. It is the most powerful thing in the Universe."

We agree on that so we can't be too far apart. :o)

"The trouble is that the knowledge that "All is One" doesn't really help us here at all."

If you "know" it only as a theoretical principle, then I agree, it may not have much value. But if you know it as something you've *experienced* on a number of occasions, then even if you travel far, far, away from that psychological space, the truth of oneness stays with you and you're never the same. At least, that's how it is for me.

"But I'm talking about a practical spiritual application of "All is One." I haven't seen that yet."

I'm saying that such experiences helped me learn how to make my life worth living and you're saying that's not practical enough?

"By the way, I prefer the formulation "All things are connected," which I find to be more literally accurate and more philosophically useful. Everything in the Universe does have some connection to everything else, but saying so preserves the respect for Void"

So does saying that all is one. Everything that exists is one entity that has chosen to pretend that it is many, and it does so by taking advantage of the essential principle that you call the void, and I call forgetfulness. Where's the lack of respect?

"I have ancestors in ancient Europe. I don't know who they are (so that is Void from my current perspective), but I know that factually they existed and that we are connected. To say that me and those ancient ancestors are "One" would seem to imply things that do not, on a practical level, seem to be so. I.e., we don't know each other, we are not in communication with each other, and so on."

To sing the praises of oneness is not in any way to downplay the importance of multiplicity. It's not one or the other. In the body we're more aware of the many, out of the body we're more aware of the one.

"But there's a lot of Void even between the Self and the parts of the body. I am amazed at how my cells and organs do their work without any prompting or knowledge on my part. I don't even feel "One" with my current body! But I certainly feel "connected.""

Seems to me you're using "connected" to indicate a weaker form of oneness. And that's how it is, I agree: we humans get to feel, at best, connected. Except, of course, in those rare moments of mystical revelation, epitomized by the NDE. And virtually all NDErs speak of oneness as their greatest revelation.

How can you take the the NDE seriously, and not believe that fundamentally we are one?

"It's a little different, since I think the expectations we create through our words should reflect are experience in the real world. For example, I don't like Christianity's description of God as a loving father. If my child were ever in mortal danger and I could save her, I absolutely would. I'd spend any amount of money and would give up my own life without a second thought. I think any loving father would do that for his child. But God is the loving father that chooses not to save us, though presumably able.

And so it is with "Oneness." If we see the origin of the Universe as a unitary, omniscient, omnipotent being, then we have a lot of odd behavior to explain."

To me the behavior is neither odd nor unforgivable when you remember that God is not subjecting *others* to pain, he's experiencing it himself. You and I are pieces of God who have chosen to know limitation and suffering because we know, at some level, that re-discovering our magnificence will feel unbelievably good.

"when I look at the depredations of Genghis Khan, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many others, I see a *positive* malice at work and not merely a "whoops! I forgot how to be nice and loving* kind of thing at work.

You call it positive malice, I call it the most extreme example of forgetfulness. Either way, it's essential to the Storyline.

"In my experiences, I did not feel "connected to all things," which is what I think a Oneness experience would be like. Rather, I saw "that which exists in opposition to nothing," which is a mind-blowing thing that transcends all categories and concepts. It also transcends One/many. But, at the same time, it's a state that spits you out right away, since, in there, there is no knower to know it. I'm not even sure it has any real practical application!"

What are you, an engineer? :o) Does everything have to have a practical application?

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Thanks for more thoughts!

Obviously, we agree on a lot. But for the purposes of friendly debate and to recap what we disagree on,

1. I agree with and believe in "All is One," though we see the implications of that somewhat differently.

2. Our conception of God is different.

3. I don't believe that "amnesia" is the mechanism by which an omniscient, omnipotent, and unitary being splits itself into multiple parts.

I *thought* you were using "void" " in that way, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. It seems to me you're describing what I was talking about earlier--the amnesia or unknowingness that God has devised in order to make the entire cosmic scheme possible. He forgets himself so that he can have the joy of re-discovering himself.

A priori, I don't think an omniscient and omnipotent being can choose to forget. Again, this is a quibble, but it has to do with creating false expectations in the here and now. This is a big theme with me. I grew up Catholic, I was fed a huge line of BS about "God," and I still resent it. I thus push back against conceptions of "God" that I think have negative implications. Push back in small ways, however, as I don't go around preaching or trying to change people's minds on the matter.

Isn't that the drama we re-enact every time we come into a body and then leave it? Forgetting, and then remembering?

I think this is very complex and is the subject of much speculation and debate on this blog. I think whatever happens, however, is organic and not arbitrary. I.e., I don't think "God" sits there and says, "Now you're going to reincarnate; I'm wiping away your memories now!"

"The trouble is that the knowledge that "All is One" doesn't really help us here at all."

If you "know" it only as a theoretical principle, then I agree, it may not have much value. But if you know it as something you've *experienced* on a number of occasions, then even if you travel far, far, away from that psychological space, the truth of oneness stays with you and you're never the same. At least, that's how it is for me.

This is quite true. I've told the story of the orange spheres on this blog before, but the TL;DR version is that as I was waking up one morning I slipped into a totally different reality for a few seconds. I saw orange spheres in a black void, and they were communicating with each other. I could see, as I expressed it later, that in this world "all attributes were contained in all attributes." That is, any aspect of a sphere or its actions could be seen in every other aspect or action of it.

So I experienced a kind of "oneness" there (I was not one with them, but I felt directly how their oneness worked. They were still separate in some ways, however).

I'm saying that such experiences helped me learn how to make my life worth living and you're saying that's not practical enough?

Right. Because I'm not saying that experiences have no practical value; I'm saying the words have minimal practical value. My experience with the orange spheres (which is different but related, I'd say) was a big experience in my life, but I'm hard-pressed to describe it in such a way that it would be a big deal in other people's lives.

"By the way, I prefer the formulation "All things are connected," which I find to be more literally accurate and more philosophically useful. Everything in the Universe does have some connection to everything else, but saying so preserves the respect for Void",

So does saying that all is one. Everything that exists is one entity that has chosen to pretend that it is many, and it does so by taking advantage of the essential principle that you call the void, and I call forgetfulness. Where's the lack of respect?

You say "chosen," which implies autonomy. We are part of the One, but we have "chosen" to be in our present state. But I personally don't feel I have made such a choice. And I don't feel the ability to do anything about it. This is what I mean about "practical implications" of words.

To sing the praises of oneness is not in any way to downplay the importance of multiplicity. It's not one or the other. In the body we're more aware of the many, out of the body we're more aware of the one.

Maybe. You mention NDEs in a bit here, so I'll cover this here. People in NDEs *do* have amazing experiences of Oneness. But, as we have (all) debated here many times on this blog, it seems that we do not just dissolve into Universal Mind after death. Other NDEs really don't deal with oneness much.

How can you take the the NDE seriously, and not believe that fundamentally we are one?

I do believe that. The issue is how to apply that truth to the here and now. This is what I have not made clear, I guess. You can't just upload your experiences into someone's soul (well, not usually). You can't just upload satori. Describing experiences is quite helpful. But ultimately philosophy is about how to think and live better, more efficiently, more correctly, more easily.

That is my issue with just saying, "All is One." It's not as though you just hear that and suddenly you know what to do with it. That was the error of the flower children in the 60s. They said, "All is One. Peace. Love." And they were totally right, but they thought that just saying those words to people would let them "get it." They were wrong about that.

To me the behavior is neither odd nor unforgivable when you remember that God is not subjecting *others* to pain, he's experiencing it himself. You and I are pieces of God who have chosen to know limitation and suffering because we know, at some level, that re-discovering our magnificence will feel unbelievably good.

Same response as before, but I don't think it is right for such a "God" to do this. Further, "God" has no needs. He does not need to set up a scary, inadequate world in order to return to himself and say, "Whew!" To me, it makes it sound as though Existence is for kicks, something that might not have happened had God felt otherwise.

You call it positive malice, I call it the most extreme example of forgetfulness. Either way, it's essential to the Storyline.

Well, then you have a "God" who is subjecting beings (you can say that they are "pieces of God," but to the beings it doesn't feel that way) to the worst cruelties for a story.

This is where you and Danison go off in your own direction, I feel. Why does Source/God need "experiences"? Why are they of value? It's not as though Source/God has neuroreceptors that make experiences feel good. Source/God is not an experience junkie. Source/God does not have "needs." Especially since, being omniscient, it knows what any potential experience would be without having to "really" experience it.

What are you, an engineer? :o) Does everything have to have a practical application?

Philosophy does, yes. If we say, "All is One," trying to be helpful to someone, then it needs to help. The words are not sacred or true in themselves. They either serve to point someone in the right direction, or they don't. Now I *do* think the words nudge someone in the right direction. As I've said before, it's a New Age truism. It's true, it just doesn't immediately lead to all kinds of revelations that help one think and live better.

[no one]

"Philosophy does, yes. If we say, "All is One," trying to be helpful to someone, then it needs to help."

Just one of the problems I have with your understanding, Bruce - and not to rehash the whole Danison thing - is that it very easily lends itself to a very *unhelpful* outlook and actions. To me, Danison is the Ayn Rand of NDE gurus.

So we are all one and we are here so "source" can get its kicks and, at the end of the day, peek-a boo, I see me! and everything is all ok.

So what in that outlook is to stop someone from being a Hitler? In fact why would it not encourage - nay reward - Hitler-esque behavior?

I mean it's like Hitler to Source, "Hey source, here's something you've never experienced before, millions of people being gassed and burned on an assembly line in the midst of a war in which thousands of others are shot and blown to bits every day. The screams of anguish, the pain, the abject misery! How's that for an experience?"

Source, "Nice work, Adolf! Wow! What a rush. Sure is better than that boring Ghandi guy or that Buddha dude sitting around staring at his navel. Heck, even my own son pales by comparison with his measely three days of pain on the cross. Well the Americans built and dropped a really big bomb. That was cool with the big fire and cloud and all, but ended way too soon. Maybe they'll drop some more if I'm lucky"

In fact, the more I think about it, this god/source craves experience idea could - I don't mean you, Bruce - be akin to satanism with its lust for all the carnal action and excitement in the physicial world. Am I missing something?

[no one]

P.S. Bruce, I don't mean to be a jerk. Like I said, I've experienced all is one, but i think that where you go from there, the implications of that and the explanation of what is going on behind the scenes, needs some work. And no, I don't think I have the answer. Not even close.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

We really tend to think alike on these issues. You said the extreme things that I chose not to, but I had the exact same word in mind: "satanic." Not in the pejorative sense, but in the literal sense: the aggrandizing of oneself at the expense of others. If it is the will of God/Source to experience anything and everything without limits, what distinguishes him/her/it from Lucifer?

[no one]

Matt, you probably have more friends and tend to get promoted faster than I do ;-)

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

I am in business for myself so there is no one to promote me. :)

Who knows about friends? I am blessed with great New Age lightworker friends, but I just looked for that kind of people.

[no one]

I am glad for you, Matt. I am working on getting there myself. Every time i think I'm out they pull me back in....

Any how, while I'm winning friends and influencing people I might as well go all in....

......so, another problem I have with Bruce's (Danison's) perspective in addition to "source" sounding utterly uncaring and unconcerned to the point of being satanic is it also makes it sound really, well, immature. It's like it might be more excited with a monkey flinging doo doo on a canvas than a Rembrante painting a Mona Lisa. There's no appreciation for quality or beauty.

I know that in my altered states I become hyper sensitive to the quality of energy that people, animals and other things/places are producing. It matters. A lot. The difference between positive energy and negative energy is like day and night. Negativity hurts. There is definitely some kind of manichean division there. And this is when i am not my normal self, rather more in tune with my higher self. And the higher I go, the more I distinguish between positive light and dark negative and the more it effects me (either way).

For this reason I have to believe that the higher planes up to and including god definitely make distinctions and that negativity is not acceptable in the higher realms. It may be forgiven, but it still has to be worked off before entrance is possible. Thus, all is not one. Source/god does discrimate quality of experience. And positive light is valued as quality experience.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I mean it's like Hitler to Source, "Hey source, here's something you've never experienced before, millions of people being gassed and burned on an assembly line in the midst of a war in which thousands of others are shot and blown to bits every day. The screams of anguish, the pain, the abject misery! How's that for an experience?"

Source, "Nice work, Adolf! Wow! What a rush. Sure is better than that boring Ghandi guy or that Buddha dude sitting around staring at his navel. Heck, even my own son pales by comparison with his measely three days of pain on the cross. Well the Americans built and dropped a really big bomb. That was cool with the big fire and cloud and all, but ended way too soon. Maybe they'll drop some more if I'm lucky"

No one, I've gotta be frank with you--when you write a comment as loaded with hyperbole and sarcasm as that, I take no pleasure in reading or responding to it. It leads me in a direction I don't enjoy.

It's ironic, because discussing these matters, as we did in the Danison thread, brings up your own "devilishness"--the very trap you say *I'm* in danger of falling into.

[Matt Rouge]

No one is not diplomatic, yet I think his point captures one of the issues perfectly.

[no one]

I know I'm using a sledge hammer there, Bruce. But please be kind and indulge me. Why would source not be pleased with Hitler? Why would source not be entertained?

[Matt Rouge]

It IS a sledgehammer, but it poses the perfect question: if experience is what you're going for, what are the limits?

[Bruce Siegel]

"Thanks for more thoughts!"

My pleasure. I'm enjoying this.

"A priori, I don't think an omniscient and omnipotent being can choose to forget. Again, this is a quibble"

This is no quibble. It's huge. How in the world can you presume to know that? You're saying God is omnipotent, but you won't grant him the power to create split-off units of himself with the ability to temporarily forget? What kind of omnipotence is that?

We know amnesia (in whatever sense you want to think of it) is real. We may not know how it operates, but it's clearly a part of the known universe.

"I grew up Catholic, I was fed a huge line of BS about "God," and I still resent it."

Ahh--now I'm starting to understand. Your sensitivity is starting to make sense.

Unlike you, no one ever pushed God down my throat. Just the opposite--primal therapy, one of the main influences in my life--insisted that he didn't exist. So I didn't have to fight someone else's concept of God, I had to overcome their complete denial, and then create my own understanding of God from scratch.

"I thus push back against conceptions of "God" that I think have negative implications."

What have I said so far about God that has a negative implication? That he can choose to forget?

"I don't go around preaching or trying to change people's minds on the matter."

Yes, that makes it easy to talk with you.

"I don't think "God" sits there and says, "Now you're going to reincarnate; I'm wiping away your memories now!""

As I've said before, I think the fundamental truth is that he says: "Now I'm going to check out life in a body. And bodies are cool because they make the forgetting game possible."

"I've told the story of the orange spheres on this blog before . . . any aspect of a sphere or its actions could be seen in every other aspect or action of it."

Sort of the holographic concept, huh? Neat experience!

"Because I'm not saying that experiences have no practical value; I'm saying the words have minimal practical value."

I agree! One of the most important insights I gained through my own own experiences was never again to take words so seriously.

"You say "chosen," which implies autonomy. We are part of the One, but we have "chosen" to be in our present state. But I personally don't feel I have made such a choice. And I don't feel the ability to do anything about it."

Yes, that's an aspect of life in the physical that is bittersweet, to put it mildly. But it's how the game works! There are no adventures possible without limitation and forgetting.

[Bruce Siegel]

(continued)

I have a much clearer perspective on this after my deepest experiences. Suddenly, after a lifetime of feeling at the mercy of forces beyond my control, I felt like the one doing the choosing. That was awesome!

And I also came to understand that when I returned to normal consciousness, I would lose that feeling again. C'est la vie.

"But, as we have (all) debated here many times on this blog, it seems that we do not just dissolve into Universal Mind after death. Other NDEs really don't deal with oneness much."

I see it all the time in accounts. In the Moorjani book that I'm just finishing now, she says: : "I encompassed--no BECAME--everything and everyone."

I see that over and over in transformative spiritual experiences of all kinds.

Now that does not negate the fact that, after re-joining Source, we do also maintain the ability to experience our individuality. It is not one or the other. When we rejoin source, we have the ability to experience ANY perspective we choose. (Though evidently, actually incarnating in a physical body makes for a unique experience of individuality).

"That was the error of the flower children in the 60s. They said, "All is One. Peace. Love." And they were totally right, but they thought that just saying those words to people would let them "get it." They were wrong about that."

I disagree completely. Those flower children knew that words were powerless. They were tired of platitudes. Didn't trust them at all.

And that's why what they really wanted people to share was not their words, but their LSD. Their *experience*.

And I'm one of the results of that attitude and that generosity. And I'm grateful for it.

"Further, "God" has no needs"

Why do you keep making these assumptions about God? I don't want to get into semantics here about the word "need". But do you really think it's absurd to say, for example, that God needs to create?

In one of my first truly ecstatic journeys, I thought to myself: This is a NEED. I need to feel this.

I will never backtrack on that word. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly---these are needs. And so is the experience of love, joy, and creativity. And who needs those things if not God?

"Well, then you have a "God" who is subjecting beings (you can say that they are "pieces of God," but to the beings it doesn't feel that way)"

That is the ultimate frustration, I agree. It doesn't feel like our choice . . . until suddenly it does. And what a grand moment that is. And believe it or not, it really is worth everything that went before.

"Source/God is not an experience junkie."

Why not say that in a more positive way? God has a need to experience.

"Especially since, being omniscient, [God] knows what any potential experience would be without having to "really" experience it."

This seems totally nonsensical to me. How is possible to know an experience without experiencing it? What it feels like to laugh, or make love, or play a musical instrument. The taste of chocolate. Think about what you're saying.

"The words are not sacred or true in themselves."

Amen to that!

if experience is what you're going for, what are the limits?

Who knows! From everything we know of history up to this point (both Earthly and Cosmic)--and keeping in mind what an infinitesimal part of the whole picture we actually see--what kind of answer could anyone give to that question that would make any sense?

[Bruce Siegel]

"if experience is what you're going for, what are the limits?"

Here's another thought, Matt and no one. You are eager to judge God because of the evil you see here on Earth. Why would he want to incarnate in such a corrupt environment, you say, the home of Hitler and others of his kind? Surely, it reflects badly on him.

But maybe this planet is an anomaly--the darkest realm in the entire universe, the place spirits go when they want to experience the deepest form of amnesia possible.

And perhaps by contrast, the rest of this infinite cosmos is a paradise of love and purity. Forgetting, pain, and loss all exist, perhaps--but on a much lower scale.

So would you feel differently about God then?

It's a real possibility, no?

Or if this isn't the worst place in this vast universe, let's say it's in the bottom 1% or even 10%. So wouldn't that point to a different God than the one you're assuming exists based on your current experience?

[no one]

Thanks for responding, but I am sorry. That does not work for me, Bruce.

First, I am not judging god because of the presence of evil in the world. I attribute that to free will. God gave us the ability to be creators of light or creators of darkness and some of us have chosen darkness; in the case of a Hitler, chosen darkness to a massive degree.

What I am judging is your view that to god their is no difference between Hitler and Buddha and Paganini. That the point is merely to experience and all experience is equally valued. This I find faulty.

I am sure that there are many other realms and that they may have different levels of spiritual delights. The fact remains that there is still a lot of pain and suffering in this world.

I also have a hard time buying the idea that spirits chose to forget; which seems to be a pillar of your philosophy - this intentional game of hide and seek. Like matt, I think forgetting is probably more of an organic process. A survival strategy for life in a human body. Also, some don't forget at least not totally. I know it makes sense to you, but I am definitely missing something here.

I am god and I am bored so I give myself amnesia so I can find myself again and have all these adventures in the process.

That's it?

Why?

As I have been saying this seems a game that would value more heavily the more outlandish bizarre behaviors.

[Bruce Siegel]

"What I am judging is your view that to god their is no difference between Hitler and Buddha and Paganini. That the point is merely to experience and all experience is equally valued."

I never said there was no difference. Nor am I necessarily saying that they're equally valued. I'm just saying nobody is condemned.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who takes NDEs seriously would want to argue this point. Haven't you read enough NDE life reviews to see that experiencers--ALL of them--are amazed to discover that even their worst acts are not condemned or punished? While, at the same time, they are guided towards understanding how they failed to live up to the highest standards of love?

How can anyone miss both of these universal aspect of the NDE?

"I am sure that there are many other realms and that they may have different levels of spiritual delights. The fact remains that there is still a lot of pain and suffering in this world."

Have I denied this in anything I've said?

"I also have a hard time buying the idea that spirits chose to forget; which seems to be a pillar of your philosophy"

It's an ancient idea. Ever hear of the River Lethe? Here's something I found online:

"Forgetfulness". In Greek mythology, the Lethe is one of the rivers that flow through the realm of Hades. Called the River of Oblivion, the shades of the dead had to drink from this river to forget about their past lives on earth.

"this intentional game of hide and seek."

Nicely put (though I know you don't agree with it.). I feel as certain of that as anything I know. And I don't think it's mere coincidence that this is one of the first games infants love to play with their mothers. Peek-a-boo! I see you!

"Like matt, I think forgetting is probably more of an organic process. A survival strategy for life in a human body."

Yes, I agree that there are different kinds of amnesia. Some kinds, like repressed memories, have more to do with surviving the effects of traumatic experiences, often from childhood. This is different than the spiritual amnesia I'm referring to.

"Also, some don't forget at least not totally."

Of course not. Can't imagine how that works against my argument. It's an important and necessary aspect of what I'm saying.

"I am god and I am bored so I give myself amnesia so I can find myself again and have all these adventures in the process.

That's it?"

I guess you can take the grandest scenario imaginable and make it seem trite by expressing it that way. As in, for example:

Love? That's all you feel for me? That's it?

"As I have been saying this seems a game that would value more heavily the more outlandish bizarre behaviors."

Read more life reviews. Then tell me why you think this is so.

[Bruce Siegel]

One more thought.

In the early 90"s, I was just starting to study NDEs and gain a spiritual perspective. It was an exciting time for me. A whole new world was opening up.

At the same time, it was sheer chaos. All these new ideas, but no single, compelling story line to replace the gloomy one I had been living with for so long. No unifying theory of everything, you might say.

Then one day, I read--can't remember where, at the moment, because MANY people share this notion--that God loses himself for the sheer joy of finding himself again.

It was an intriguing thought. I kept testing it against everything I was reading and experiencing. And gradually, after living with the notion for years, I came to realize that for me, it continued to made perfect sense.

As much as anything, it seemed to be the plot line that my own history was tracing. It seemed to be the essential truth in every movie that touched me, every book I enjoyed, every life I looked at.

Twenty years later, I still feel that way.

"this intentional game of hide and seek"

You've stated my worldview in seven words, no one. If it's wrong, I'm still waiting for someone to show me why.

Of course, it's possible that I'm merely stressing one aspect of the cosmic game, and others will stress other aspects that seem more important to them. But I admit--I would have a hard time with anyone who doesn't see that it is, at the very least, a theme with enormous explanatory power.

[no one]

First this, "Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who takes NDEs seriously would want to argue this point. Haven't you read enough NDE life reviews to see that experiencers--ALL of them--are amazed to discover that even their worst acts are not condemned or punished?"

I am afraid I have to disagree.

By definition and NDE is not a DE. So an NDE cannot accurately account for what actually happens after death.

Even in NDEs, while punishment may not come from a top down authoritative process (though in some few NDEs it actually does), there is still a self judging that occurs.

What you want to believe, at least as i read you, is that all is instantly forgiven. A brief, perhaps painful life review, and the Hitler and Mother Teresa bask in the same light light in the same realm, perhaps having tea and laughs together.

After life communication clearly show this is not the case. Instead, karma must be worked off. Souls of low morals and distorted spiritual understanding are stuck in lower astral realms, perhaps to learn and to advance eventually, perhaps to sink even lower. This, to me, shows that experience alone is not what it's all about. The nature and wuality of the experience count. A lot.

So you are overlooking a huge piece of the puzzle.

Now, "this intentional game of hide and seek", makes no sense to me. It is an interesting idea. Yet it leaves me cold. Why would this game be played? Why?

[no one]

Bruce, i am sorry. I have too much going on in my life right now to discuss these things in any reasonable way that does justice to you and to me. I just can't focus - let alone spell (not that I really ever could).

Peace, love and hapiness.

[Matt Rouge]

To recap where we are now in the debate, I think there are two main points of disagreement we have:

1. I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient "God" that existed before anything else and willfully fashioned the type of Universe he wanted. I.e., more or less the traditional God of Western religion.

I don't believe in such a God because I don't see a God like that acting in the world. I think the argument from evil is pretty much a concept killer in this case. I also don't believe that this is the Universe that such a God would create if given the opportunity to create anything.

You asked what I meant about "negative implications." I probably used the wrong word. I meant that, if you teach someone that the above-mentioned "God" exists, then he or she is likely to have false expectations about how the world works.

2. I do not believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being has the power to limit its memory, i.e., experience amnesia. I think traditional conceptions of and philosophy regarding the Western "God" would back me up on this.

Also, re another point of yours below, I don't think that "God" as traditionally conceived can break off parts of itself that experience amnesia. Traditionally, something like this would simply be called "creation." Traditional Western religion is very explicit that we are *not* parts of God, that we are separately created beings.

Now you can say, Well, I disagree with traditional Western religion, and I think God breaks off parts of himself that are still him but forgetful that they are him.

In such a case, we have another difficult philosophical issue. And that is that we can be told that something is so but still not really see how it is so. One example from Catholicism. It is said that the wafer of the Eucharist is the "body of Christ." Not just that Jesus blesses it or blesses you when you eat it. Not just that it carries his vibe or something. No, it really is his body. But in what *way* is it his body? There is even more complex Aristotelian bullshit in which the wafer is said to retain the "accidents" of bread yet take on the "essence" of the body of Christ.

I call bullshit and say it isn't his body and can't be his body.

Similarly, if something is split off from God and retains no memory of being God, then what makes it a "part" of God? I don't see any meaningful difference from saying that it's a separate creation.

Thought experiment: God spits off one person from himself and gives it amnesia. God creates another person that is completely separate. Is there any difference in the nature of these two beings?

---

Now, you are free to say that your "God" is not the "God" of traditional western thought but different in some ways. That is fine, but it does present a tricky philosophical minefield. The reason is that the word "God" has so many connotations and so much "baggage" that it's hard to argue about. I might cite a traditional connotation of the word/concept, and then you are forced to say, "No no, it's not like that."

But I am disinclined to join in the theological argument, since I don't believe in such a God in the first place. Nevertheless, I can (try to) point out how your conception of God varies with tradition and state how I feel it is self-contradictory or incoherent.

As for forgetting oneself and experiencing joy in finding oneself again, I do not have a problem with that. That is a big theme, after all, in Buddhism (finding or recalling one's true nature). And I do think it is very applicable to our real-world lives, in which we remember past lives and learn who we truly are. My argument is against an omnipotent and omniscient being that can choose to forget, as I noted above.

On to the individual points!

This is no quibble. It's huge. How in the world can you presume to know that? You're saying God is omnipotent, but you won't grant him the power to create split-off units of himself with the ability to temporarily forget? What kind of omnipotence is that?

Right. I think that omniscience + amnesia is incoherent. You can't have both. And I dealt with the split-off issue above.

We know amnesia (in whatever sense you want to think of it) is real. We may not know how it operates, but it's clearly a part of the known universe.

I think amnesia is a brain thing. I think that's the most parsimonious way to explain it. We are born basically blank because our brains are blank. They are blank not because God wants to wipe the slate clean but, on the contrary, the purpose of the new life (in a series of lives) is truly to build something new, and human life progresses organically. Thus, it's not amnesia, and there is no artificial mechanism to keep information away from us. I.e., God preventing us from remembering past lives. If that were the case, then we would expect that mechanism to be 100% effective, but clearly it is not. The question then remains why we can and do sometime remember our past lives? I don't have the answer to that, but I have various theories that I won't get into here. Overall, however, I would say it is related to psi and following connections.

Unlike you, no one ever pushed God down my throat. Just the opposite--primal therapy, one of the main influences in my life--insisted that he didn't exist.

Did you experience the primal scream? If so, do you think that's a genuine experience or something that the therapy arbitrarily induced? Or both?

I agree! One of the most important insights I gained through my own own experiences was never again to take words so seriously.

I agree, except I *do* take them seriously in the sense that I push back against overconfident and incorrect use of them (not saying that's you). In general, I assume that communication is difficult and words are very blunt and imprecise instruments.

Yes, that's an aspect of life in the physical that is bittersweet, to put it mildly. But it's how the game works! There are no adventures possible without limitation and forgetting.

This is true.

I see it all the time in accounts. In the Moorjani book that I'm just finishing now, she says: : "I encompassed--no BECAME--everything and everyone."

I see that over and over in transformative spiritual experiences of all kinds.

I do recognize this. I think it is as no one said: a level of awareness.

Now, when she became me (presumably I was included), I have no issue believing that she understood everything about me, could feel my emotions, etc. But I did not feel her becoming me. I did not experience that. So it was a one-way street. So I think it's easiest to think of it as a level of awareness that she experienced.

Now that does not negate the fact that, after re-joining Source, we do also maintain the ability to experience our individuality. It is not one or the other. When we rejoin source, we have the ability to experience ANY perspective we choose. (Though evidently, actually incarnating in a physical body makes for a unique experience of individuality).

My takeaway from my studies of NDEs and other relevant sources is that we spiritually evolve Over There and don't immediately join with Source after death. YMMV.

I don't want to get into semantics here about the word "need". But do you really think it's absurd to say, for example, that God needs to create?

It doesn't work in terms of traditional theology. And personally I don't think "omnipotence" and "need" go together. But of course I don't believe in such a God anyway, as stated above.

In one of my first truly ecstatic journeys, I thought to myself: This is a NEED. I need to feel this.

I will never backtrack on that word. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly---these are needs. And so is the experience of love, joy, and creativity. And who needs those things if not God?

Yes, we do indeed have needs. In traditional theology, however, God is "perfect." Complete. Without needs.

That is the ultimate frustration, I agree. It doesn't feel like our choice . . . until suddenly it does. And what a grand moment that is. And believe it or not, it really is worth everything that went before.

Yes, it is human nature to feel great relief to be suddenly freed from fear and limitation. That is our nature. And it is more a weakness than really something good about us, although it's perfectly understandable for beings that have evolved to survive on a planet like ours. But it sounds like total projection to ascribe such a psychological dynamic to the original being and creator of the universe. I have to push back heavily against this, as I find it absurd.

"Source/God is not an experience junkie."

Why not say that in a more positive way? God has a need to experience.

It's not a positive image either way. What can ever assuage this need? God is an infinite being; presumably this need is infinite as well. I mean, it's not as though he's had a "few" experiences and is now satisfied, right? Presumably he has to keep going, and going, and going. Without any hope of satiety or completion. This sounds more like the Wheel of Samsara than anything divine.

"Especially since, being omniscient, [God] knows what any potential experience would be without having to "really" experience it."

This seems totally nonsensical to me. How is possible to know an experience without experiencing it? What it feels like to laugh, or make love, or play a musical instrument. The taste of chocolate. Think about what you're saying.

Yet in the life reviews of NDEs people are able to "experience" the pain of others simply through direct knowledge, so it's not a nonsensical thought at all. Presumably an omniscient being would contain all such knowledge, not only of things that have actually happened but of things that could potentially happen as well. If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with the concept of omniscience.

But maybe this planet is an anomaly--the darkest realm in the entire universe, the place spirits go when they want to experience the deepest form of amnesia possible.

And perhaps by contrast, the rest of this infinite cosmos is a paradise of love and purity. Forgetting, pain, and loss all exist, perhaps--but on a much lower scale.

So would you feel differently about God then?

No. This is a huge philosophical can of worms. First, there is the whole issue of control and to what degree God is making all of this stuff happen or allowing it to happen.

The percentage doesn't matter. God shouldn't allow bad stuff to happen. We're not talking about scraping your knee and learning a lesson in playground coordination. We're talking about vile, unconscionable, mind-bending, soul-crushing evil. Stuff that *ought not* be--at all.

I get the feeling that you don't feel that way about evil. Almost like, Hey, in the scheme of things, it's OK. If that's the case, then it's just going to be something we're not going to be able to agree on.

No one: "What I am judging is your view that to god their is no difference between Hitler and Buddha and Paganini. That the point is merely to experience and all experience is equally valued."

I never said there was no difference. Nor am I necessarily saying that they're equally valued. I'm just saying nobody is condemned.

This is a crucial point. A linchpin. If there is a difference, then what is that difference? If there not equally valued, then how are they not equally valued? I think that thinking through and answering these questions would result in a view of things that is much different than your current view.

Here's an example of what I mean.

I enjoy drinking single malt Scotch. Some single malts taste very different. Some taste very alike. On the whole, I'm open to and enjoy tasting a variety of malts. Now imagine the three tasting parties I could go to:

1. A varied selection of 25 nicely matured malts from different regions of Scotland, all of the highest quality.

2. 100 different samplings from 100 different barrels of the same, rather young, pretty average but still drinkable malt.

3. 1,000 examples of malt disasters. Contaminated and improperly stored barrels and a variety of production mistakes. Plus malts that just ended up tasting horrible for no discernible reason.

Guess which tasting party I'd like to go to? This is a no-brainer. You know the answer because you understand human nature. You know how the human body works and how taste buds function. You know what variety and safety mean to a human.

But "God" does not have a body and thus lacks, quite literally, God-given preferences. According to traditional theology, God is "good," but you have not categorically said that he rejects evil experiences, so perhaps God is not "good" in your conception.

Thus, by what mechanism can God value the "Hitler experience" over the "Paganini experience"?

This rather much implies, and in fact you suggested something similar in this thread, that God will simply experience everything possible. In other words, infinite universes, etc. And this leads us once again to the key question: "What's the difference?" If it is simply the case that everything that can happen does happen, then I would say that this no different from not choosing anything at all. If it's a rule that I am compelled to take a shot of every single malt I come across, then I am *not* selecting my malt-drinking experiences.

But if you say, "No no, not everything is selected," then we are back to the mechanism of selecting experiences. Not only that, but we are left with the question of how experiences are limited, since we are now saying that they are not infinite." We know for a fact that the Hitler experience *was* selected, so we have to explain how that happened too.

This is a philosophical nightmare, IMHO.

Now, you may be taking a different approach. You may like the poetry of certain words and concepts. You may like the *feeling* of thinking that God plays hide and seek and breaks off parts of himself to have experiences. And you may think that I'm being a curmudgeon to criticize such poetry. Yet I hope it's clear that I am arguing on a philosophical level.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who takes NDEs seriously would want to argue this point. Haven't you read enough NDE life reviews to see that experiencers--ALL of them--are amazed to discover that even their worst acts are not condemned or punished? While, at the same time, they are guided towards understanding how they failed to live up to the highest standards of love?

I agree 100%. There is no need to condemn them because they simply recognize the truth themselves. But it is clear that they DO make value judgments and regret in some sense the fact that they hurt other people. There are preferences expressed in life reviews, and it is not a neutral acclamation of all "experience."

Let's not also forget that there are negative NDEs and people do go to hell and express supreme regret for their actions in life.

Based on my readings, I feel pretty confident saying that people as evil as Hitler (or even a fraction as evil) has ever had a standard NDE with a life review and ended up going into the light like anybody else. NOT because God said no! and cast them into hell, but simply because they would not have felt resonant with or comfortable in the light.

"this intentional game of hide and seek."

Nicely put (though I know you don't agree with it.). I feel as certain of that as anything I know. And I don't think it's mere coincidence that this is one of the first games infants love to play with their mothers. Peek-a-boo! I see you!

Of course, it's possible that I'm merely stressing one aspect of the cosmic game, and others will stress other aspects that seem more important to them. But I admit--I would have a hard time with anyone who doesn't see that it is, at the very least, a theme with enormous explanatory power.

This is what I mean by "theme." I think it's important. I do connect it more to "finding our true nature" than "God forgetting," but this is perhaps largely a question of aesthetic.

Cheers,

Matt

[Bruce Siegel]

Nope-this is not a reply, Matt. That's gonna take some time. :o)

But I do have a question. How do you get this site to accept such a large post? When I try that, it doesn't show up and I have to break it up into at least two parts. What's your secret?

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

I don't know. I've never been prompted to divide the things. Browser I'm using? (Firefox.)

Not sure!

[Bruce Siegel]

Thanks. I'll try Firefox!

By the way, as a teaser, I'm fascinated by something you said in your comment, and have been thinking of little else for the last hour. So if it takes me a while to get back to you, it's not for lack of interest!

Trying to balance a life/livelihood with the "demands" of such a fascinating conversation can be a challenge. But talking with you is helping me to clarify my own thinking, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

[Matt Rouge]

Cool, man. I'll be here! :)

[Bruce Siegel]

OK--these comments are getting long. Really, REALLY, long. Michael, if you're unhappy with us taking so much space here, just say the word, and I'll understand.

Matt, before I get into your comment point by point, I want to point out what seems to me a big difference between the two of us. It's epitomized in one of your paragraphs, one that begins with:

"It doesn't work in terms of traditional theology"

And ends with:

"But of course I don't believe in such a God anyway, as stated above."

You mention again and again the traditional Western concept of God. And just as often, you say that you don't buy into it. So my question is, why do you keep bringing it up?

It can't be to convince me. You know me well enough, I think, to know that arguments from tradition carry no weight with me.

But maybe you don't know that. So let me say it clearly: in formulating my spiritual viewpoint, you will never, ever, find me relying on traditional religious or philosophical concepts. And the reason is simple: I find those sources to be dead wrong as often as they're right. And 50% odds don't appeal to me.

Now, I'm not saying there's no truth to be found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, classical philosophy, and so on. I'm sure there's plenty.

And I'm not saying my approach is the right one. But for better or worse, I'm a mystic. And we mystics are empiricists. We find that truth comes through loudest and most reliably through experience.

Now as I see it, you yourself are at least partially a mystic. You give great weight to experience, which makes it fun for me to talk with you. Frankly, I've given up trying to engage very deeply with those who, at every turn, value thoughts and logic over feelings and intuition.

But at the same, as I read your comments, I see you involved in a tug of war. You're no longer convinced by the religious training that was foisted upon you as a child, but is it possible you're still more deeply influenced by it than you know? You'll notice I never bring up the "conventional" wisdom, so clearly you're not mentioning it yourself in response to my remarks.

Now on with the rest of your comments.

'"1. I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient "God" that existed before anything else and willfully fashioned the type of Universe he wanted. I.e., more or less the traditional God of Western religion.

I don't believe in such a God because I don't see a God like that acting in the world. I think the argument from evil is pretty much a concept killer in this case."

As I've said, I find evil--or amnesia--to be essential in creating a cosmic scheme that can maintain our interest through eternity.

"2. I do not believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being has the power to limit its memory, i.e., experience amnesia. I think traditional conceptions of and philosophy regarding the Western "God" would back me up on this."

A perfect example of the point I was making earlier. I think you're unduly swayed by dogmatic assumptions of what is and is not possible.

"Also, re another point of yours below, I don't think that "God" as traditionally conceived can break off parts of itself that experience amnesia. Traditionally, something like this would simply be called "creation." Traditional Western religion is very explicit that we are *not* parts of God, that we are separately created beings."

There goes that silly tradition again. :o)

"Similarly, if something is split off from God and retains no memory of being God, then what makes it a "part" of God?"

Ah but we DO retain a memory of his oneness. Remind me--what is the essential truth that NDErs say comes flooding back to them as a self-evident fact they can hardly believe they could ever have forgotten? Why do they feel they're returning to a "place" (a light that they call a Being) so familiar they universally call it Home?

There's your memory, and with it, proof of the amnesia I talk about.

"Thought experiment: God splits off one person from himself and gives it amnesia. God creates another person that is completely separate. Is there any difference in the nature of these two beings?"

I don't think God CAN create a person that is completely separate from himself. Because he has no clay to work with that is not part of his own infinite being.

"Now, you are free to say that your "God" is not the "God" of traditional western thought but different in some ways. That is fine, but it does present a tricky philosophical minefield. The reason is that the word "God" has so many connotations and so much "baggage" that it's hard to argue about."

An excellent point. I forget that others don't think the way I do. As a child, nobody insisted that believe anything particular about God or religion. And then later, for twenty years, I became the ultimate atheist.

So when I began reading about NDEs and began having my own spiritual experiences, I was free to form my own concept of God from the ground up. Though I had tons of emotional baggage, I didn't have any spiritual baggage. Once I got past complete denial, I was a blank slate.

And I'm always assuming, foolishly, that others can easily understand and relate to my history and perspective . That's a big mistake!

"But I am disinclined to join in the theological argument, since I don't believe in such a God in the first place."

Yet you bring it up once again. Why?

"As for forgetting oneself and experiencing joy in finding oneself again, I do not have a problem with that. That is a big theme, after all, in Buddhism (finding or recalling one's true nature). And I do think it is very applicable to our real-world lives, in which we remember past lives and learn who we truly are."

I'm glad you see these examples of what I'm talking about.

"I think that omniscience + amnesia is incoherent"

Why do you insist on this? A being that can do absolutely anything, can certainly figure out a way to temporarily forget!

"I think amnesia is a brain thing. I think that's the most parsimonious way to explain it. We are born basically blank because our brains are blank. They are blank not because God wants to wipe the slate clean"

And yet you believe in the reality of past life memories, and even have your own. Isn't that inconsistent with being born a blank slate?

"The question then remains why we can and do sometime remember our past lives?"

Ok, you're bringing it up yourself. I can't tell you the mechanics, but I can tell you that the variations in our ability to remember--not just our past lives but things related to our current life, too--is part of the equation that gives such rich variety to this cosmic game.

"Did you experience the primal scream? If so, do you think that's a genuine experience or something that the therapy arbitrarily induced? Or both?"

That's a big subject. And I always keep my comments concise. :o)

So I'll just say this--Primal Scream was a misleading name for Janov's book. What comes up in the therapy infinitely more often than screaming is crying.

And though there have been moments of artificiality, my ability to feel deeply from my gut is what keeps me sane. Or somewhere in the neighborhood.

"In general, I assume that communication is difficult and words are very blunt and imprecise instruments."

Right on.

[Bruce Siegel]

OK--these comments are getting long. Really, REALLY, long. Michael, if you're unhappy with us taking so much space here, just say the word, and I'll understand.

Matt, before I get into your comment point by point, I want to point out what seems to me a big difference between the two of us. It's epitomized in one of your paragraphs, one that begins with:

"It doesn't work in terms of traditional theology"

And ends with:

"But of course I don't believe in such a God anyway, as stated above."

You mention again and again the traditional Western concept of God. And just as often, you say that you don't buy into it. So my question is, why do you keep bringing it up?

It can't be to convince me. You know me well enough, I think, to know that arguments from tradition carry no weight with me.

But maybe you don't know that. So let me say it clearly: in formulating my spiritual viewpoint, you will never, ever, find me relying on traditional religious or philosophical concepts. And the reason is simple: I find those sources to be dead wrong as often as they're right. And 50% odds don't appeal to me.

Now, I'm not saying there's no truth to be found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, classical philosophy, and so on. I'm sure there's plenty.

And I'm not saying my approach is the right one. But for better or worse, I'm a mystic. And we mystics are empiricists. We find that truth comes through loudest and most reliably through experience.

Now as I see it, you yourself are at least partially a mystic. You give great weight to experience, which makes it fun for me to talk with you. Frankly, I've given up trying to engage very deeply with those who, at every turn, value thoughts and logic over feelings and intuition.

But at the same, as I read your comments, I see you involved in a tug of war. You're no longer convinced by the religious training that was foisted upon you as a child, but is it possible you're still more deeply influenced by it than you know? You'll notice I never bring up the "conventional" wisdom, so clearly you're not mentioning it yourself in response to my remarks.

Now on with the rest of your comments.

'"1. I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient "God" that existed before anything else and willfully fashioned the type of Universe he wanted. I.e., more or less the traditional God of Western religion.

I don't believe in such a God because I don't see a God like that acting in the world. I think the argument from evil is pretty much a concept killer in this case."

As I've said, I find evil--or amnesia--to be essential in creating a cosmic scheme that can maintain our interest through eternity.

"2. I do not believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being has the power to limit its memory, i.e., experience amnesia. I think traditional conceptions of and philosophy regarding the Western "God" would back me up on this."

A perfect example of the point I was making earlier. I think you're unduly swayed by dogmatic assumptions of what is and is not possible.

"Also, re another point of yours below, I don't think that "God" as traditionally conceived can break off parts of itself that experience amnesia. Traditionally, something like this would simply be called "creation." Traditional Western religion is very explicit that we are *not* parts of God, that we are separately created beings."

There goes that silly tradition again. :o)

"Similarly, if something is split off from God and retains no memory of being God, then what makes it a "part" of God?"

Ah but we DO retain a memory of his oneness. Remind me--what is the essential truth that NDErs say comes flooding back to them as a self-evident fact they can hardly believe they could ever have forgotten? Why do they feel they're returning to a "place" (a light that they call a Being) so familiar they universally call it Home?

There's your memory, and with it, proof of the amnesia I talk about.

"Thought experiment: God splits off one person from himself and gives it amnesia. God creates another person that is completely separate. Is there any difference in the nature of these two beings?"

I don't think God CAN create a person that is completely separate from himself. Because he has no clay to work with that is not part of his own infinite being.

"Now, you are free to say that your "God" is not the "God" of traditional western thought but different in some ways. That is fine, but it does present a tricky philosophical minefield. The reason is that the word "God" has so many connotations and so much "baggage" that it's hard to argue about."

An excellent point. I forget that others don't think the way I do. As a child, nobody insisted that believe anything particular about God or religion. And then later, for twenty years, I became the ultimate atheist.

So when I began reading about NDEs and began having my own spiritual experiences, I was free to form my own concept of God from the ground up. Though I had tons of emotional baggage, I didn't have any spiritual baggage. Once I got past complete denial, I was a blank slate.

And I'm always assuming, foolishly, that others can easily understand and relate to my history and perspective . That's a big mistake!

"But I am disinclined to join in the theological argument, since I don't believe in such a God in the first place."

Yet you bring it up once again. Why?

"As for forgetting oneself and experiencing joy in finding oneself again, I do not have a problem with that. That is a big theme, after all, in Buddhism (finding or recalling one's true nature). And I do think it is very applicable to our real-world lives, in which we remember past lives and learn who we truly are."

I'm glad you see these examples of what I'm talking about.

"I think that omniscience + amnesia is incoherent"

Why do you insist on this? A being that can do absolutely anything, can certainly figure out a way to temporarily forget!

"I think amnesia is a brain thing. I think that's the most parsimonious way to explain it. We are born basically blank because our brains are blank. They are blank not because God wants to wipe the slate clean"

And yet you believe in the reality of past life memories, and even have your own. Isn't that inconsistent with being born a blank slate?

"The question then remains why we can and do sometime remember our past lives?"

Ok, you're bringing it up yourself. I can't tell you the mechanics, but I can tell you that the variations in our ability to remember--not just our past lives but things related to our current life, too--is part of the equation that gives such rich variety to this cosmic game.

"Did you experience the primal scream? If so, do you think that's a genuine experience or something that the therapy arbitrarily induced? Or both?"

That's a big subject. And I always keep my comments concise. :o)

So I'll just say this--Primal Scream was a misleading name for Janov's book. What comes up in the therapy infinitely more often than screaming is crying.

And though there have been moments of artificiality, my ability to feel deeply from my gut is what keeps me sane. Or somewhere in the neighborhood.

"In general, I assume that communication is difficult and words are very blunt and imprecise instruments."
Right on.

"Now, when she became me (presumably I was included), I have no issue believing that she understood everything about me, could feel my emotions, etc. But I did not feel her becoming me. I did not experience that. So it was a one-way street. So I think it's easiest to think of it as a level of awareness that she experienced."

Though this sort of mutual spiritual breakthrough does happen, to some extent, in the shared death experiences Moody talks about.

"Bruce: I don't want to get into semantics here about the word "need". But do you really think it's absurd to say, for example, that God needs to create?

Matt: It doesn't work in terms of traditional theology."

How foolish of me--then it simply CAN'T be true!

Sorry. :o)

"And personally I don't think "omnipotence" and "need" go together. But of course I don't believe in such a God anyway, as stated above."

The old tug of war.

"Yes, it is human nature to feel great relief to be suddenly freed from fear and limitation. That is our nature. And it is more a weakness than really something good about us, although it's perfectly understandable for beings that have evolved to survive on a planet like ours. But it sounds like total projection to ascribe such a psychological dynamic to the original being and creator of the universe. I have to push back heavily against this, as I find it absurd."

I agree that God doesn't experience those feelings in his most pristine, unified, state. But he does experience them through those parts of himself we call "you" and "me."

"What can ever assuage this need? God is an infinite being; presumably this need is infinite as well. I mean, it's not as though he's had a "few" experiences and is now satisfied, right? Presumably he has to keep going, and going, and going. Without any hope of satiety or completion. This sounds more like the Wheel of Samsara than anything divine."

What do you find so unacceptable, so un-God-like, about need? Does need have to be an ugly thing?

"Especially since, being omniscient, [God] knows what any potential experience would be without having to "really" experience it.

Yet in the life reviews of NDEs people are able to "experience" the pain of others simply through direct knowledge, so it's not a nonsensical thought at all."

They experience the pain by experiencing it. They have returned to the state in which there are no divisions between people.

"God shouldn't allow bad stuff to happen."

Bad stuff is like dissonance in music. Stop the piece in the middle, sustain those two clashing notes, and it sounds terrible. But if you keep the music flowing, the dissonance resolves to harmony, and you come to understand that without dissonance, music is bland indeed.

"No one: "What I am judging is your view that to god their is no difference between Hitler and Buddha and Paganini. That the point is merely to experience and all experience is equally valued."

Bruce: I never said there was no difference. Nor am I necessarily saying that they're equally valued. I'm just saying nobody is condemned.

Matt: This is a crucial point. A linchpin. If there is a difference, then what is that difference? If there not equally valued, then how are they not equally valued? I think that thinking through and answering these questions would result in a view of things that is much different than your current view."

You're right to call me on that. And now that I think about it, I waffled on that answer. Let me correct myself now.

You're saying, if good and evil are valued equally by Source, then why does Source point you in the direction of love?

And the answer is: because that's what the life review is about. It's that part of your journey in which you have a unique opportunity to make decisions that will take you closer to Source.

So then you ask: doesn't that prove evil is not valued equally?

Well, maybe "equally" is not the right word. MAYBE.

But here's what I am certain of: without evil--without forgetting--there would be no life review, no moving away from or towards Source, and no journey.

There would be no story line. And a universe without stories is inconceivable.

I say this in all sincerity--there may be nothing in the universe more fundamental than a story. Scientists are looking for the "god particle," but they may be looking in the wrong direction to find bedrock.

I don't think it's a coincidence that folks who make movies are the highest paid people on the planet.

"You may like the poetry of certain words and concepts. You may like the *feeling* of thinking that God plays hide and seek and breaks off parts of himself to have experiences."

Nope. I'm after the facts. Just like you.

[Bruce Siegel]

Woops--ignore the 4:00 AM post entirely, and read only the 4:06 AM one. (The 4:00 AM post is the first half only, and I didn't think it made it online.)

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, here's another way to say it: You're right, God cannot forget. In his original state, amnesia is out of the question.

But what he can do is create a sub-entity, a split-off part of himself who CAN forget. That's what brains seem to be for, right? Filtering out most of reality and allowing in just the smidgeon of awareness that makes an earthly life possible.

And if you say that's beyond his ability, how can you possibly call him omnipotent?

[no one]

Bruce, I due to your detailed and well written comment I am beginning to develop a better understanding of what I don't like about your view.

Here's one big issue I have; You make the assumption that upon death everyone, Hitler and Mother Teresa alike, undergo a life reveiw, realize their mistakes - mistakes that were born of amnesia - and then having had the reaization instantly go into the ever loving light together as equal retired actors in source's great play. Correct me, please if I have incorrectly summarized your belief.

Now, I am a mystic by the definition you put forth.

What you are proposing absolutely does not feel right to me.

Also, to the extent that I am one who sees value in practical logic, I don't see where your perspective is validated by the evidence from afterlife communications. While you rely heavily on NDEs to support your position, I must continue to point out that NDEs are DEs.

Why doesn't it feel right to me? For one, as I have noted before (up thread) evil, and I'm not just talking about actions, but attitudes and thoughts as well, feel to me very different than positive. The more in tune I am with my higher self or perhaps even the farther I go beyond my self, the more acutely sensitive I become to the difference between positive and negative, good and evil. I have not lived a sheltered life. There have been periods of time where I had to numb myself with alcohol just so I could interact with the negative people that I had too. In OBE experiences as well, i have encountered souls that were evil and lurking on lower astral realms causing - or trying to cause - trouble. Others have noted the same thing. So evil is real and it seems to be the opposite or the enemy of good. And it seems that it is operating separately from that which we call god. If we want to call it ignorance as opposed to evil, we have a semantic change, but the reality appears to me to be unchanged. It is still a functional entity with power, if not a real entity with power.

Back to the idea the an NDE is not an DE. In my understanding, many people arrive at the all loving light upon death. They see it, feel it, bask in it, but then come to realize that due to their karma, they cannot stay in it and they then move on to realms where the light is less illuminating; or, at worse, non-existant. They can then work off karma and learn and move back closer and closer to the light over time. perhaps through subsequent incarnations here on earth or through other means.

Your idea that NDEs demonstrate that all are immediately accepted into the light, for ever, upon death is wholey speculative and is unsupported. In this respect i think the Tibetan Book of The Dead has it right. Due to karma and illusion we sink from the light which we see at first. In other words, old habits die hard.

But the final bit that bothers me is that your version eliminates free will and the consequences of it. As below so above and vice versa. You have Hitler not chosing to be evil. He was just an actor in the source's great drive for experience. He didn't chose to do anything he did. Therefore, no consequences other than a bumpy life review. A few rough seconds in the face of eternity. It's as if he is not a real person. Not authentic because he made no choice;s added nothing, subtracted nothing. Just an automaton for an amoral god/source that is insensitive to the difference between positive and negative energy.

And all this leads me to the logical conclusion that your view, essentially, is not so very different, perhaps ultimately the same, as the idea on the other thread of loosh eaters and the source as a soul consuming eagle. Because we are just all equal beings of light that are one, with no individual free will, feeding the source experiences and then returning to it all as equals, all as one. How is that different from being consumed by the eagle or a loosh eater? And how do we reconcile afterlife communications wherein there are individual personalities and descriptions of different levels of learning? Of which there are many.

[no one]

"But what he can do is create a sub-entity, a split-off part of himself who CAN forget."

Similarly, why not an energetic split off that is negatvive and in opposition, aka lucifer?

[Bruce Siegel]

"Your idea that NDEs demonstrate that all are immediately accepted into the light, for ever, upon death is wholey speculative and is unsupported"

Here's the thing. Though we all spend countless hours debating the precise sequence of events when we leave the body, I think all such talk is futile. And that's because linear time is only real on this level--the physical.

How can we say that when we die, that first this happens, then this, then this, when NDErs repeatedly stress that everything happens simultaneously? And when the precognition that we see operating in our dreams and lives supports that view?

That's why I've given up trying to pin these things down. What happens when we leave the body can't be described verbally, a point that NDErs often make. The afterlife simply cannot be grasped by anyone whose awareness is mediated through a brain.

So while I do enjoy talking about NDEs, about the after-death state, and about reincarnation in broad terms, I have stopped believing that we can talk meaningfully about a sequence of after-death events. Or whether "sequence of events" even has any meaning in that context.

And if that seems like a radical stance, or a copout, or simply impossibly frustrating--isn't it clear by now that all evidence does indeed point in that direction?

Even a statement as broad as "we emerge from Source and journey back to it" seems to imply a time-line of sorts, and may be mere metaphor.

I know this is frustrating to you, no one, because it makes it difficult to talk about stuff like morality. But I'm comfortable with that state of affairs because none of my experiences tells me that God has the slightest interest in what we call morality.

(Observe your reaction here. Does this make you angry? Why?)

Remember--I do agree with you that God's highest value, his essential nature, is love.

"And how do we reconcile afterlife communications wherein there are individual personalities and descriptions of different levels of learning?"

I notice I'm less interested these days in afterlife communications.

"But the final bit that bothers me is that your version eliminates free will"

Free will is a subject we harp on because we're frustrated by the fact that when we live in a body, our options are fewer than when we're in spirit. Some people say we have no free will at all, but that's crazy.

Entering a human body is like walking onto a tennis court. All we can do on a tennis court is play tennis, or something like it. We can't swim, or travel to another country, or play football.

So, because we have to follow certain rules of tennis that limit our options (while affording us certain pleasures), do we surrender our free will when we walk onto the court?

[Bruce Siegel]

I forgot to address this:

"So evil is real and it seems to be the opposite or the enemy of good. And it seems that it is operating separately from that which we call god."

Evil IS the opposite of good, and it's no more or less real than time. Like time, it exists on certain levels of reality in order to provide a certain perspective, or set of adventures.

And though I can't prove this to you, I don't think evil exists separately from God. And that's because my own experiences--and the experiences of many others--point to a scheme in which NOTHING exists outside of God.

[no one]

Agreed on the whole time line point you make. Unfortunately words are the most commonly used tool we have avialable to us and they fail in this respect. One reason why I keep saying that everything explanatory is a myth; myth in the sense of allegory. I rather drink some ayahuasca and sit around together and have a mutually shared mind meld direct experience communication without words. tends to eliminate semantic misunderstandings.

Just to be clear, I am not so interested in morality as in the ten commandments and other thou shalts and thou shall nots. I do howver have a manichean view of the world. I do believe there is evil, negaitive forces (call it what you like). I do believe that people/souls chose, to varying degrees, to be on one side or the other. I further believe that those who have chosen the dark side are not instantly cleansed upon death (or in any other non-linear sequence). I believe that the source may still love them, but that their presence within source is not possible until the darkness is worked off. This may be a point where we will always disagree, but it's still good to discuss.

As far the tennis court analogy, we surrender some free will in that we are now tennis players and not swimmmers. However, we still have the free will to chose how we play the game of tennis. And how we choose to play is what counts, IMO.

[no one]

"Evil IS the opposite of good, and it's no more or less real than time. Like time, it exists on certain levels of reality in order to provide a certain perspective, or set of adventures.

And though I can't prove this to you, I don't think evil exists separately from God. And that's because my own experiences--and the experiences of many others--point to a scheme in which NOTHING exists outside of God."

I hear you. I know what you mean. Yet I still don't fully agree. Think of it more like matter and antimatter. Physics says they both exist. They are both components of the universe. So in some sense they are part of the oneness of the universe. practically speaking, though, they are like night and day and have to be dealt with that way. The fact that they are part of the entirety of the universe is of no use outside of enjoying a big thought. I think matt was getting at something like earlier in the discussion. I'm looking forward to hearing from matt.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I'm looking forward to hearing from matt."

Nah. Matt's clearly run out of ideas. He's a spent force. I don't think we'll ever hear from him again.

:o)

[no one]

maybe the eagle has eaten him

[Bruce Siegel]

The ultimate oneness.

[no one]

and, while we wait to see if Matt still has his loosh, here is an oldie but a goodie concerning practical application.........

....Guru says to young student, “You are Brahman. You are God. The student says, “Wow, I am God!” Deeply withdrawn, he walks away, down through the village and into the country. He sees a great elephant coming down the road, the howdah on top and the driver on his head. The young student thinking, “I am God” decides not to get out of the way The man on top of the elephant shouts, “Get out of the way, you lunatic!” . The young student wonders, “If I am God and the elephant is God, should God get out of the way for God?” The truth arrives when the elephant wraps his trunk around the young person and throws him off the road. The student is physically okay, but shook up psychologically and decides to go back to the guru. “You told me I am God.” The guru replies, “And so you are.” “Well, then the elephant is God.” “And so his is,” says the guru. The student asks, “Well then should God get out of the way for God?” The guru smiles and comments, “But why didn’t you listen to the voice of God shouting from the head of the elephant?”

[Matt Rouge]

The eagle has landed.

OK, I'll do my long preamble thing and then respond to individual points.

I was raised Catholic. I became a Buddhist at age 13 (as much as a 13-year-old can really become anything), and when that didn't work for me I became an atheist. By the time I entered high school, however, I was starting to feel my psi pretty heavily, so atheism wasn't going to work for me. But I went to a Catholic high school, then to a Catholic college (Loyola Chicago--not because it was Catholic). I majored in philosophy and minored in theology.

I hope that fills in some of the blanks more. Although I resent the crap that was pumped into my head in the name of Catholicism, I also recognize that it's a very deep tradition. Every read Augustine or Aquinas? Those guys were geniuses. And I went on to value philosophy and its sibling, theology.

So, I get into this stuff.

You asked why I keep harping on traditional theology. Because you're using the word "God." I've tried to argue very carefully and have assumed that you are using the word in a fairly generic way. But still, you're using the word "God" in a Western context (i.e., we're Westerners and this is the English language. If none of the traditional associations or attributes of the Western "God" are in your head when you are using the word, then, I ask, Why use it?

Of course, to be fair, you may have some very bare-bones associations and/or attributes in your mind that lead you to use the word. E.g., you might be calling your conception of the Supreme Being "God" because other people call their conception of the Supreme Being "God"--even though their conception and yours are different.

Such a situation can lead to a muddled philosophical conversation and arguing at cross-purposes.

Another reason I bring up traditional theology is because a lot of it makes sense. A lot of people have poured deep thought into it. Although I don't agree with its ultimate conclusions, I do respect it. And, like it or not, it's the foundation behind use of the word "God" in the West. By the same token, I respect the deep thought and traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Most New Agers like me feel that the Eastern and Western traditions both have a lot going for them.

So if you say you were an atheist but then left that but had no "baggage" about God, that has its pluses and minuses. On the one hand, cool, you were not stuck thinking in (or fighting) the false patterns of a particular religion, but you also didn't have that as a jumping off point.

Now, what I really think is that you're an awesome guy (insofar as I know you here) with many great experiences and great life experience overall. I think we both fit into the New Age rubric and thus are argument with each other does not run very deep. I think one of the key elements of being a New Ager is a willingness to make sense of what other people say and asking oneself, "In what way could this be true?" I'm asking about even the things I disagree with you here and I do gain insight from them.

So on this macro level, I think our disagreements are few, but I do think we have an important and substantial disagreement when it comes to good and evil. And this also comes down to something we both value--experience. I've experienced evil directly in my own life, probably as much as most people have, but I've also studied the evil of history quite a bit and felt it on a deep level. And part of this understanding also comes, I believe, from psi (feeling how others feel) and past life recall.

So, based on my own experiences and studies, there is stuff in the universe that is not OK. The forces of good oppose it and don't accept it. They would rather do without such experiences and "stories."

I also don't see anything in the vast majority of NDEs, spiritual communications, etc., to contradict this view. If anything, the life review emphasizes the crucial importance of good and evil, in my interpretation, which I think is the easiest and commonsensical interpretation.

So that's the macro, the really important stuff. When we get into the nitty-gritty of philosophy, we have a bunch of disagreements. Most of these are no more important than brain-teasers.

Forgive me if the following sounds a bit impolitic or harsh. I don't intend it that way, but I don't want to use a bunch of weasel words that would lessen its clarity.

I would say, purely on a philosophical level, that your conception of "God" is a bit ad hoc. He's named "God," but he's not directly related to a traditional conception of "God." He's what you've experienced and felt him to be, no more, no less.

Again, why use the word?

Perhaps your "God" is just a "god." Perhaps he's one way of looking at things. Perhaps he's not a he. Perhaps he's not omniscient or omnipotent. Perhaps he was created greater by a bigger and better God. Maybe you'll find he's changed or been changed later on.

I mean, it could be anything and everything--or nothing--right? I mean, I hear about a being that likes to split itself off into other beings that forget where they come from. I hear about a being that values "experiences" and "stories."

But couldn't there be another "God" that values different things? What makes your "God" the one God and this different God who is into different things not the one God? Maybe your "God" doesn't make a big deal about good and evil while mine does.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You've used the word "God" with all those connotations, but there really isn't anything to back up that it is "God." It would be as if I talked about Poseidon, god of the sky and wielder of the thunderbolt. If you objected that traditionally such a god was named Zeus, I could just say that I don't worry about tradition and my Poseidon is god of the sky and that's that. And you could say, "Then why call him Poseidon?"

Same question.

You asked why I kept insisting that I don't believe in God. I probably protested too much, but I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't defending a particular view of God. Actually, it partially because of some of the philosophical difficulties involved that I don't believe in God. IOW, I am pointing out where I think your arguments are philosophically not strong, but I believe that the surefire way to avoid such pitfalls is not to believe in "God" in the first place.

Michael, if you're unhappy with us taking so much space here, just say the word, and I'll understand. That won't stop me. j/k

you will never, ever, find me relying on traditional religious or philosophical concepts. And the reason is simple: I find those sources to be dead wrong as often as they're right. And 50% odds don't appeal to me.

Wait a sec. "God" itself is a traditional concept--you're using that, right?

And I'm not saying my approach is the right one. But for better or worse, I'm a mystic. And we mystics are empiricists. We find that truth comes through loudest and most reliably through experience.

Now as I see it, you yourself are at least partially a mystic. You give great weight to experience, which makes it fun for me to talk with you.

I try to give it as much weight as it deserves. I think reason is also very important.

Experience cuts both ways, since it's also possible to be a know-nothing where one does not have personal experience. Take our nemesis, the skeptics. It doesn't matter what evidence for phenomena you show them, they'll just say, "I've never experienced that and it's impossible so you're deluded." They've never had an NDE, so that's all BS.

I reason that there's an Afterlife based in large part on NDEs. That's an experience I'd actually prefer not to happen until I'm going to stay Over There for good. :)

But experience has to be put in some type of framework. Preferably a good one. Like with our favorite whipping-girl Danison here. Her framework is totally self-aggrandizing. Why does her NDE contradict a lot of what other NDEs have said. Because it was the deepest NDE in history! Her approach is simply, "Dictate my experiences. Here's your truth." No apparent philosophical questions, caveats, or qualms.

People without the proper frameworks have "leveraged" their experiences and insights to become Bubba Free John (excuse me, "Adi Da") and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (excuse me, "Ohsho") or have "leveraged" the experience and insights to become their dedicated followers. Now my guess when it comes to gurus is that they usually have something going for them, that they're not totally fake. But their false framework and incorrect philosophy puts them on the wrong path.

As Jesus said, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction." There are many pitfalls. Experience alone can't tell us what is right.

Frankly, I've given up trying to engage very deeply with those who, at every turn, value thoughts and logic over feelings and intuition.

Right, because logic can also be the wide gate that leads to destruction.

As I've said, I find evil--or amnesia--to be essential in creating a cosmic scheme that can maintain our interest through eternity.

This really does sound like Samsara. Wouldn't some type of Nirvana--eternal, unbreakable peace and satisfaction be preferable?

Ah but we DO retain a memory of his oneness. Remind me--what is the essential truth that NDErs say comes flooding back to them as a self-evident fact they can hardly believe they could ever have forgotten? Why do they feel they're returning to a "place" (a light that they call a Being) so familiar they universally call it Home?

Again, however, my personal takeaway has not been that people merge with the light or are about to do so in NDEs.

There's your memory, and with it, proof of the amnesia I talk about.

I think there is a familiarity with the spirit world because we keep going to same place after death. It is our "home." I don't read this as part of the mechanics of merging with Source.

I don't think God CAN create a person that is completely separate from himself. Because he has no clay to work with that is not part of his own infinite being.

I agree with this.

And then later, for twenty years, I became the ultimate atheist. You still are! j/k

And I'm always assuming, foolishly, that others can easily understand and relate to my history and perspective . That's a big mistake! I do feel I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from.

And yet you believe in the reality of past life memories, and even have your own. Isn't that inconsistent with being born a blank slate?

Ok, you're bringing it up yourself. I can't tell you the mechanics, but I can tell you that the variations in our ability to remember--not just our past lives but things related to our current life, too--is part of the equation that gives such rich variety to this cosmic game.

I think asking how past life memories, Afterlife memories, and new incarnation memories interrelate is simply beyond our understanding now. It's like wondering how metabolism works in the 1600s. Smart people can advance theories, but we really don't have the tools to figure it out yet. My guess is that it's organic and very complex and probably similar to another complex system of the body. In my experience, past life memories seem to come from a different place. They feel the same as regular memories (i.e., do not, for example, feel like memories of dreams), but they seem to be coming from a different channel. But that channel also feels the same as the regular memory channel. My overall impression about memory is that it's not stored in the brain per se, but instead the brain stores pathways to the Akashic records for the memories.

What do you find so unacceptable, so un-God-like, about need? Does need have to be an ugly thing?

Here I am tempted to cite tradition again, in this case Buddhism, in which attachment is the cause of all suffering. But in your particular system, need is the driving force of God himself. This is what I mean by an ad hoc system. There is no dialog with or processing of what came before. Along the lines of, "Hey, traditionally God is thought of as being perfect and without needs, but actually..." Show how it's an evolution of thought or a correction of a past misconception. Otherwise, it comes across as, "Hey, this is just what I think."

Yet in the life reviews of NDEs people are able to "experience" the pain of others simply through direct knowledge, so it's not a nonsensical thought at all.

They experience the pain by experiencing it. They have returned to the state in which there are no divisions between people.

Yes, but their experiencing the pain of others did not require a *new* event and did not add to the suffering of the world. Likewise, God (in theory) could experience everything "in his head" without actual beings having to suffer.

Bad stuff is like dissonance in music. Stop the piece in the middle, sustain those two clashing notes, and it sounds terrible. But if you keep the music flowing, the dissonance resolves to harmony, and you come to understand that without dissonance, music is bland indeed.

Here is where, for real, you are blowing off the problem of evil and we are just fundamentally disagreeing. As though things like genocides were adding piquancy to the music of life. I really gotta call you out here and assert that that is not correct thinking.

You're saying, if good and evil are valued equally by Source, then why does Source point you in the direction of love?

And the answer is: because that's what the life review is about. It's that part of your journey in which you have a unique opportunity to make decisions that will take you closer to Source.

But Source has chosen to be evil people and do evil things (as a percentage of the things it has chosen to do), so is Source not close to itself when it is doing evil?

Also, the above comment seems to contradict the notion of evil as dissonance that adds to music.

But here's what I am certain of: without evil--without forgetting--there would be no life review, no moving away from or towards Source, and no journey.

Evil = forgetting? I think it's an equivocation of two very different concepts. Plus, I think it implies a psychology that contradicts the real world. I'd say a pretty high majority of people who do evil things know that they're in the wrong, so they at least haven't forgotten that. Plus, people who are depraved exhibit specific traits that make them what they are. For example, sociopathy. It's not as though serial killers start killing out of blankness and forgetfulness.

There would be no story line. And a universe without stories is inconceivable.

I don't agree. I am pretty confident in saying that there are realities that don't operate like ours at all. I think you are projecting something that is very important to you onto everything.

I say this in all sincerity--there may be nothing in the universe more fundamental than a story. Scientists are looking for the "god particle," but they may be looking in the wrong direction to find bedrock.

I think food is more fundamental than stories.

Here's the thing. Though we all spend countless hours debating the precise sequence of events when we leave the body, I think all such talk is futile. And that's because linear time is only real on this level--the physical.

I've pondered this a lot. I think there can be a logical order that does require actual time. Consider the moves of a chess game. In theory, the moves do not require a specific amount of time, but they are still in a particular order.

I know this is frustrating to you, no one, because it makes it difficult to talk about stuff like morality. But I'm comfortable with that state of affairs because none of my experiences tells me that God has the slightest interest in what we call morality.

(Observe your reaction here. Does this make you angry? Why?)

If that is a category in which God has no interest, then why does it crop up as a factor in the experiences he chooses? Is God just interested in some things and not others?

Remember--I do agree with you that God's highest value, his essential nature, is love.Then God would not allow bad things to happen.

"And how do we reconcile afterlife communications wherein there are individual personalities and descriptions of different levels of learning?"

I notice I'm less interested these days in afterlife communications.

Is this like God not being interesting in morality?

Entering a human body is like walking onto a tennis court. All we can do on a tennis court is play tennis, or something like it. We can't swim, or travel to another country, or play football.

So, because we have to follow certain rules of tennis that limit our options (while affording us certain pleasures), do we surrender our free will when we walk onto the court?

This is a very good metaphor.

Evil IS the opposite of good, and it's no more or less real than time. Like time, it exists on certain levels of reality in order to provide a certain perspective, or set of adventures.

This is more of the thing I gotta call you out on, bro. :) Genocide = perspective? adventure?

You guys asked what I thought the origin of evil is. Here's where being a pantheist comes in handy. I don't have to work with the conundrum of an all-good God who somehow allows something completely alien to his nature to slip into existence.

If we look at Godel's incompleteness theorem, we see that no system can be both complete and non-self-contradictory. I intuit that that means that Reality is the same way. Reality contains a fundamental contradiction/incompleteness. It is in an indeterminate state in which it is trying to resolve its contradiction and complete itself. That's what this whole universe is. That's where the "story" comes from. Once we see that this tension is a fundamental aspect of Reality, perhaps even its driving force, then it's fairly easy to intuit where evil comes from.

I think evil is a like a static electric charge on everything. Normally, it is not enough to bother us. But this negative energy can be channeled and *wants* to be channeled. I think it really is like the Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars. Some people like Hitler are natural channels of evil. As Star Wars correctly intuits, the charge of evil can be used for good. The Sith want "order." They think they are doing good in their own way. But the force they channel eventually corrupts them and they start killing a bunch of people, etc. Hitler also initially channeled fear and hate into a more orderly country (though through totally unacceptable methods, mind you, and with many victims, even before genocide), but it corrupted him AND he lost control of it and then he *HAD* to kill and destroy.

[Matt Rouge]

Oh hell that's long.

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt, you've given me something to chew on, and I'll have more to say over the weekend. In the meantime, this, by Wordsworth:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home.

[no one]

So, Matt, regarding morality and my take on it as outlined in comments above, would you agree that morality may be an emerging feature of an evolving universe?

Which is to say that it matters and forces of light and forces of darkness are co-evolving in a Darwinian kind of competition?

That is how I see it and am curious about your thoughts as I respect your opinion and thinking.

Thanks!

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Longfellow's reputation is not very high these days, but I appreciate him!

BTW, I was thinking about the similarities in our way of thinking these days:

You. God is the origin. God has need and therefore wants to become, to experience.

Me. The immutable laws of number and logic and pure potentiality are the origin. This is the "khaos" of Greek myth. The Universe struggles to become, to experience.

I don't think we are too far apart here. We could have different names for different things. We could be describing things differently based on aesthetic preferences.

From this point on we may differ; we may not.

I see life, sentience, consciousness, and higher levels of awareness emerging from khaos. There are many different worlds and modes of being within Reality. The overall vector of Reality, however, is toward Love and higher modes of being. To me, "God" is this vector, which only ultimately becomes itself in the realm of infinity and eternity.

To me, the good news of reality is that we get to participate in this becoming and we will not ever get bored or tired of it because there is no limit to the process (yet, on a different level of awareness, we can "be" in the ultimate resolution of completeness and non-contradiction). We get to be in the "home" of God yet always participate in building the infinitely loving and good home.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

The Manichean battle you speak of is very evident here on Earth. What I don't know is how high that goes. My gut says that there are *not* fallen celestials a la Lucifer and there are *not* great powers of intelligence and ability that are evil.

I think good and evil are asymmetrical. Good is harmonious and self-sustaining. Evil is disharmonious, other-destructive by definition and usually self-destructive in the short term but always self-destructive in the long term.

I don't think the base energy of evil--the dissatisfaction of the Universe with itself, or negativity--is evil per se, and I think we need some of it just to live. This energy can even be used for good. Likewise the base energy of good--the satisfaction of the universe with itself, or positivity--is not good per se--and some of it is definitely needed to do evil, since there needs to be a high level of harmony and coherence in a being in order for it to do evil.

I had a vision once in a crystal bowl meditation (friend played the crystal bowls, we listened and drifted off to some pretty awesome places). I had asked how the problem of evil is handled at higher levels. How would, say, the higher level of the Afterlife remain stable. The answer came to me in a very hard-to-express visual metaphor, but the essence of it was this: that there are stable realms in which the foundation of negativity is no longer at the level of evil and can't possibly go that low. In other words, negativity in these realms is processed at some level of love and light and ultimately used to advance good.

And it may be the case that *any* system (including individual conscious entities) in the universe follows this evolutionary path and rises instead of sinks.

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt,

I'm still working on your last long comment. It'll take a few days.

But in the meantime, a few quick thoughts on these last two brief remarks.

"BTW, I was thinking about the similarities in our way of thinking these days"

I agree that we share plenty of common ground. In a nutshell, we agree that we are moving towards God.

What separates us is my perspective--a popular one, I believe--that we also BEGIN with God.

To say that it all begins with "The immutable laws of number and logic" leaves us needing to find out where those laws came from. That's a pickle!

Of course, you might say, where does God come from? And you'd be right--that's also hard to answer.

So for me, it all comes down, once more, to experience. And none of my own journeys, and no NDEs that I'm aware of, point in the direction of numbers or laws as being more fundamental than the LIght. (God.)

"there are stable realms in which the foundation of negativity is no longer at the level of evil and can't possibly go that low. In other words, negativity in these realms is processed at some level of love and light and ultimately used to advance good."

Very cool. And this is what I was saying earlier. We struggle here on Earth because the negativity (which I often call amnesia) is more profound here than in other realms.

But please don't comment on these points. I've got enough to respond to already. ;o)