IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« | Main | More on M-space, N-space, and so on »

Comments

I can't see much evidence of you closing threads down and having the final word tbh lol I've seen some real humdingers on here.

Even on this thread - very funny lol

"That's all fine, but apparently it hasn't occurred to him that someone could come from a skeptical background, then "methodically re-examine the evidence" and become convinced that some paranormal phenomena are real. This was my experience, and it has been the experience of many other people." 

That was true for me back in the early 90's, with an important difference--I couldn't RE-examine the evidence, because I had never looked at in the first place. Not at all, for the first 45 years of my life.

I'm sure that's true of a lot of people.

"I'm going to take a tip from Michael's blog and take the final word on this subject, at least for now."

That's pretty funny! It shows he not only doesn't know you, but if he really thinks we'd let you get away with that, he doesn't know your readers very well either.

By the way, I didn't get your clever title until I just happened to say it out loud. Maybe we need a form of punctuation that tells the reader: "to grasp the humor, say these words out loud."

Your Internet forum moderator sounds like an Ayn Rand-style philosophical cultist.

"To him, [spirit communication]...is mysticism unsupported by any empirical evidence."

Michael if empirical evidence's actual experienceable evidence such as experiencing hot things burning then by definition what's a medium other than someone who undergoes the experience of communicating with spirits?

But up goes the cry but that's only experienceable by mediums!

But there's a wealth of literature out there which clearly stresses we're all capable of becoming artists scientists musicians boxers doctors etc etc if only we're willing to put in the time to learn such skills including those of a medium.

In fact what supposedly distinguishes mysticism from religion's precisely its premises can be tested by techniques like meditation.

Yet even in religion which's supposedly spoonfed dogmatic stuff there's a huge experiential component as I've had pointed out to me by various earnest young American Mormons and the like who I seem to have the knack of finding myself trapped beside on buses.

Use prayer to invite Jesus or whoever into your heart they say and experience their truth for yourself although I invariably respond but then I might get your version of him and a universe only a few thousand years old.

Ditto the detractors of mysticism send up the cry I'm not go'n'o study mediumshhip just to confirm what I already know's a load o' bollocks [in case I find out it isn't]!

But then how's that different from the Inquisition supposedly refusing to look down the barrel of Gallileo's telescope?

In short unless we've actually experienced it ourselves we only have other people's words for it they landed on the moon...fired electrons through gold foil...caused a single electron to travel through two slots...etc etc etc

"Your Internet forum moderator sounds like an Ayn Rand-style philosophical cultist."

Interestingly enough, there's an Internet-based movement called Neo-Tech that combines Rand with Jaynes. See harcortm's comment here (last comment on page):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006043027061

"That's all fine, but apparently it hasn't occurred to him that someone could come from a skeptical background, then "methodically re-examine the evidence" and become convinced that some paranormal phenomena are real. This was my experience, and it has been the experience of many other people."

Personally, I had to go through atheism to find my spirituality sans the dogma. I'm still working on it, of course. I actually admire Christians that lean toward experience vs. faith, but, for myself, I find Christianity to limiting.

I actually admire Christians that lean toward experience vs. faith,

Steve Smith

AJ Nock wrote, in his Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, p. 292:
The part of Christian literature which I found most acceptable was the work of writers who had applied an enlightened common sense, combined with an enlightened fervour, to 'the divine impossibilities of religion,' and who drove most directly at practice. On the other hand, I found the part of it which was devoted to metaphysical and institutional system-building or system-propping largely unacceptable, as savouring less of religion than science or, as I thought, pseudo-science."

"In short unless we've actually experienced it ourselves we only have other people's words for it they landed on the moon...fired electrons through gold foil...caused a single electron to travel through two slots...etc etc etc". Exactly.

There is what you call subjective experience, rather than just objective experience which is also relevant, and which a number of people not only on this site, but throughout the world have had. And has obviously changed their beliefs.

Its these views of experiences that are lumped as 'mystical' that have remained over the generations, passed on from childhood with those of organized religion, rather than newage spiritual beliefs common now. The difference is, that people now feel that spiritual experiences offer an understanding of the universe which are no less important to science than any other.

And that's what he fails to understand. Finally people like Eben Alexander and others are coming forward and speaking out with somewhat less fear of retribution, than was the case in the past. Lyn x.

The comments to this entry are closed.