The ego-persona

In my last post, I suggested the possibility that mediumistic communications may sometimes or frequently originate with something akin to the "astral shell" of mystical thought. I called it the persona or the ego. For simplicity, let's call it the ego-persona from now on.

This ego-persona incorporates everything, or nearly everything, that we think of as constituting our personality, including our memories, emotions, hopes, dreams, fears, and loves. The one thing it lacks is self-awareness. This quality is provided by the Witness, the timeless, egoless part of us that observes our ego-persona and contributes the spark of life, as it were. Without the Witness, the ego-persona is mostly just a collection of quirks and tics which may continue operating for a while, maybe even indefinitely, but without any personal growth.

Now, how plausible is this idea? Well, I think I can make a semi-plausible case for it, though many questions remain.

But first, is there any evidence that the ego-persona separates from the Witness at the point of death? Possibly, yes. Some studies of near-death experiences have shown that people who have undergone these events have an unusual propensity for dissociation. I suspect that this mental trait is a direct result of the NDE itself. If the NDE entails partial dissociation from the ego-persona, then this effect may linger even after the experience is over. Of course this implies that an actual death experience (as opposed to a close call) would entail at least as much separation of the Witness from the ego-persona.

Next, we have to wonder how active this ego-persona might be. Is it limited to merely repeating things that it's already said or thought, or can it engage constructively in dialogue, in give-and-take exchanges?

I think if we introspect, we'll find that the ego-persona can be very active indeed. We often find ourselves doing things unconsciously. In fact, I suspect that most of what we do throughout the course of the day is largely unconscious. A lot of our thinking consists of rationalizing behaviors that we are already performing. The experience of finding yourself in a room and then wondering, Why did I come in here? is hardly novel.

It seems safe to say, then, that the ego-persona has a certain degree of autonomy and initiative -- not necessarily free will, but an ability to respond to stimuli or engage in repetitive behavior. Perhaps we can think of it as being something like a dog. A dog shows initiative at times, even a certain limited creativity. What a dog lacks is self-awareness, the faculty of the Witness -- and this is what the ego-persona lacks also.

So the fact that ego-personas can communicate, show interest, make demands, answer questions, even talking in their own voice or materialize and shake hands (if this actually happens) does not mean they are self-aware. We can do all of these things now without thinking about it or being aware of it.

On the other hand, an exercise of unusual creativity might indicate self-awareness, since the unconscious actions of the ego-persona are generally repetitious and uncreative. A dog doesn't show much creativity; he's mostly a creature of habit, of stimulus and response. So is the ego-persona, for the most part.

That's why the cross correspondences, which do show evidence of subtle and ingenious creativity, are among the best proof of the survival of personal self-awareness, as opposed to the survival of the ego-persona. The cross correspondences are so original in conception that it is difficult to ascribe them to the workings of the (basically) uncreative ego-persona.

Perhaps the famous R-101 case also qualifies, since the chief communicator (Irwin) seemed able to hypothesize and theorize creatively about the cause of the crash and to discuss possible engineering modifications. This type of communication goes considerably beyond mere chitchat or the utterance of vague generalities or specific but trivial recollections.

Also, there are cases in which the communicator speaks of having undergone significant personal growth in his postmortem existence. He has learned a new things and developed a new perspective, even a new philosophy. To the extent that these communications are not products of the medium's subconscious mind, they indicate the continuing presence of self-awareness in conjunction with the ego-persona.

Of course, if we grant that ego-persona can be creative and capable of intellectual and spiritual growth, then all bets are off. But at that point, we seem to be drawing no distinction between the ego-persona and a person. If the ego-persona can do everything a person can do, then it is a distinction without a difference.

The bottom line is that the ego-persona may be communicating in many seances, and may be just as real as any other constructed personality, whether it is a personality constructed by the medium's subconscious mind or by some other source. This would perhaps explain the oddly somnambulistic quality of much mediumistic communication, the strange lapses and illogicalities, and the appearance of fictional communicators and still-living communicators alongside the verifiable, deceased ones.

Note that this hypothesis does not entail super-psi. The medium is not necessarily creating these thought forms (though she may create some of them, like her controls). For the most part, they already exist. She is just accessing them. And they have enough initiative to seek her out, in the manner of drop-in communicators - just as a dog can seek its master.

The bottom line is that the medium may be communicating with something, but not necessarily with the spirit or soul as we normally understand it. Or, more precisely, in certain cases she may be communicating with the spirit (the Witness + the ego-persona), while in other cases she may be communicating only with the astral shell (the ego-persona alone).

Comments

[Michael Tymn]

The problem with analyzing the ego-persona is that we begin with a foundation set down by mechanistic/reductionist psychology that ignores or rejects the spirit hypothesis. The secondary personality and multiple personality phenomena can be explained by spirit possession, astral fragment attachment, group soul stream of consciousness, whatever, but that's all scoffed at by modern psychology.

Hereward Carrington and some other researcher whose name I can't recall carried out psychological tests with Eileen Garrett's primary control, Uvani, and Gladys Osborne Leonard's primary control, Feda, and, while not conclusive, found that they were indeed separate personalities. It was also concluded that split personalities are advances hysterics, while none of the mediums tested gave any sign of hysteria. The controls themselves insisted that they were entities independent of the medium. I don't recall his exact words, but Phinuit, the supposed fictional early control of Leonora Piper once said something to this effect: "You idiots. I am me, not her. If you can't accept that it is your problem."

[Leo]

Michael Prescott I wonder what your response is to these videos i just saw on youtube.
Michael Shermer and m peringer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0&mode=related&search=
michael shermer attacking john edwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWE5N8z2Aa4&mode=related&search=

[Michael Tymn]

Another "control" or "secondary personality" comes to mind -- Patience Worth. When Patience was asked about being a fragmented personality of Pearl Curran, the medium, she replied, "I be me and she be she." Of course, Pearl's fragmented personality could have been at war with her primary personality and trying to put one over on the researchers.

[Kevin]

I'm curious if Michael has ever encountered the occasionally reported phenomenon of an author producing a novel or story with the seemingly active "participation" of one or more of the characters in the piece, they offering input ("I wouldn't say that" or "I wouldn't do that") and, in a sense, DIRECTING the course and outcome of the fiction. If that experience has occured, as some novelists have reported, it may be quite similar to the experiences of the mediums you've written about. I've encountered much the same when ideas for paintings, completely formed and ready to be painted, will simply appear in my mind as if from nowhere, with no preliminary consideration taking place consciously.

I note that cognitive neuroscientists accord only about 5% of our cognitive activity to consciousness, the remaining 95% being subconscious and beyond our active awareness. It is our so-called "adaptive unconscious" which makes it possible for us to, say, drive to work while consciously pondering questions like the ones posed by the mysteries of consciousness itself. We arrive at our physical destination intact, even if we are no further along in understanding these mysteries. But is it this selfsame adaptive unconscious which is responsible for these mediumistic communications, the results of automatic writing, even the symbolic messages in our dreams? Having experienced precognitve dreams, these questions give rise once again to the recurring questions of "where" this information comes from.

These are the most fascinating questions I have encountered in my life, Michael, questions I've been wrestling with for many years. I appreciate your own delvings into what Frank Zappa may have called "the crux of the biscuit" as they have stimulated me in many ways (I'm just beginning chapter 5 in "Irreducible Mind"), and I hope you continue returning to the thread as consideration warrants. Between your thoughts and those of your respondents, we may actually be able to produce some sense of progress (with the cooperation of our ego-personas and witnesses, naturally).

[william]

This is an interesting take on personality surviving death.

I have often wondered why someone who has been dead for hundreds and some even over 2000 years still come through as the same dear person they were in this life.

Have they not progressed in their wisdom?

Some spirits come through and admit their mistaken beliefs in this life but others appear to be their same sweet self.

Maybe we are looking for a constant when in reality there are many different realities after we leave this physical world.

Hope everyone saw vitor's link on the piper case that seems to suggest the professor that claimed to catch the medium piper bring through a nonexistent “spirit” by the name of beals appeared to be fraudulent information on the professor’s part.

This in my mind is why we cannot take one incident that appears to be fraud and then call the medium a fraud.

[Bill W.]

"In my last post, I suggested the possibility that mediumistic communications may sometimes or frequently originate with something akin to the "astral shell" of mystical thought. I called it the persona or the ego. For simplicity, let's call it the ego-persona from now on."

Why not just try to use the terms and concepts that esoteric schools of thought have already used and described and see if they make sense in describing “survival,” OBEs, NDEs, psychic perception, precognition, reincarnation, and other phenomena?

It seems to me what you are calling the “ego-persona” is what they refer to as “the soul.” Esoteric descriptions separate pure consciousness (spirit, soul) from “form” which refers to the many manifestations of spirit focusing consciousness through “matter.” However, “matter” does not just mean physical matter. They have a multi-dimensional view and each dimension has its own “substance,” laws, principles and characteristics. The dimensions are not separate, but interpenetrate and interact with each other in many ways. It is these interactions that account for the phenomena mentioned above. It is also important to realize that this does not just apply to human consciousness, but also to more primitive forms of consciousness such as animals, plants, and even rocks and minerals. This view of “non-physical matter” is not that unrealistic, after all, cosmologists know that there exists matter that we know very little about (shadow matter, dark matter). Likewise, string theory postulates the existence of other dimensions.

Since the dimensions interact, psychic perception is thought to occur as the physical brain and conscious mind receive impressions (via the subconscious) from the astral or mental dimensions. Even inanimate objects have “astral projections” and this accounts for things like remote viewing. Time, being a characteristic of the physical plane, does not apply in other dimensions, so precognition is possible.

In the esoteric view, it is the physical, astral and mental components that they refer to as “the personality.” When a person dies, only the physical body is shed, but the astral and mental bodies continue to exist in their own dimensions. This is the “surviving personality” that mediums may contact. But they also describe what is referred to as the “second death,” where even the astral and mental bodies “die.” Reincarnation then refers to the soul taking on new mental, astral, and physical bodies that gradually evolve over time. Likewise, OBEs and NDEs represent interactions with these dimensions even while the physical body is still alive.

[Michael Prescott]

>It seems to me what you are calling the “ego-persona” is what they refer to as “the soul.” Esoteric descriptions separate pure consciousness (spirit, soul) from “form”

"Pure consciousness" would correspond to the Witness. "Form" would correspond to the ego-persona.

[Michael Prescott]

>I'm curious if Michael has ever encountered the occasionally reported phenomenon of an author producing a novel or story with the seemingly active "participation" of one or more of the characters in the piece

Yes, in the sense that if I'm writing a dialogue between two characters I know well, they will often start saying things that I didn't expect to hear!

Thanks for your kind words, Kevin.

[Bill W.]

"Pure consciousness" would correspond to the Witness. "Form" would correspond to the ego-persona.

Yes, I realize that you were implying the same meaning here. But I wanted to point out that the esoteric view goes further than saying that the ego-persona originates with “something akin to the astral shell.” They claim that the other forms (physical, etheric, astral, mental) are something that the soul in its evolution attempts to bring more fully under its control, yet they have energies and characteristics in their own right, just as physical matter does. In fact, I believe the term “astral shell” may have a more specific meaning to them, almost as astral “matter” acting on its own in a sense, even after the soul has withdrawn its consciousness from it.

[Bill W.]

Actually, that's exactly what you were saying in your last paragraph, I think.

[Cyrus]

A lot of this makes sense to me even with support of the survival hypothesis; when you consider how some mediums suggest the mechanism behind direct-voice is somewhat related to neurology; in the sense thoughts form first, and are interpreted to come out as sound-waves. The discarnate entity is attempting to stick its thoughts into the same mechanism that multiple other entities, including the medium, are sharing. What results are audible messages, but in an extremely filtered and unpredictable form. To me, this is what accounts for all the inconsistencies, not only do you have spirits trying to communicate, but the mediums own subconscious mind is fooling around in things too. This would apply even more-so to mental mediums, since the spirits would be directly using the mediums own brain.

bill w: I have wondered why those on the other side do not seem to know much about reincarnation.

example many spiritualists do not teach reincarnation but the spirits book teaches reincarnation as a means to progress as a soul.

is it after this second death that the soul takes on a physical body?

also what evidence do we have that esoteric schools of thought are any more valid than religious teachings.

from my point at this time of view spirit is this pure awarenness and soul is our evolved consciousness and much, but not all, of our ego is attached to this physical body.

[Bill W.]

"To me, this is what accounts for all the inconsistencies, not only do you have spirits trying to communicate, but the mediums own subconscious mind is fooling around in things too.

Yes, exactly. On another forum, Carl Japikse, who in my opinion is one of the best authors on these topics along with Robert Leichtman, MD (both are skilled clairvoyants) was asked a question pertaining to different forms of non-physical perception. His response was:

"There are three levels of nonphysical perception: astral, mental, and spiritual. The first two are psychic forms of perception; the last is intuition. Astral perception tends to be somewhat inaccurate, as our perceptions are colored by assumptions and emotions. Mental perception is much more accurate, but less common. Intuitive perception is rare."

This differentiates astral and mental psychic perception and adds spiritual intuition which is apparently not only rare, but also rarely discussed.

[Bill W.]

"bill w: I have wondered why those on the other side do not seem to know much about reincarnation."

I have heard rumor that it’s like “death denial” in reverse. LOL.

"also what evidence do we have that esoteric schools of thought are any more valid than religious teachings."

I don’t think they are more valid. I think the best esoteric teachings encompass the best principles of all religions, when properly understood.

[william]

billw: that death denial could be for real. When my granddaughter was born I felt she did not want to be here. It took lots of love and comfort from her parents before she started to accept her life in the physical world.

Your words “properly understood” are interesting, even the terrorists who think they properly understand these principles but then go out and kill those that don’t agree with their properly understood principles.

It appears to me that any principle not based in love of self and others may not be a principle but a human belief.

What book or article would you suggest that best describes these best religious principles?