IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Book review: There Is Life after Death | Main | A last look »

Comments

Me thinks Mr Moody has gone of his rocker...

Pot calling the kettle black is the perfect response to this man and his charges against parapsychologist.

Moody and Varghese were guests on Coast to Coast on January 7, 2010. During the interview Moody said (I don't recall his exact words)that he has changed his mind and now believes that life after death is indeed probable.

.......and become "Mad-Eye" Moody of Harry Potter fame.

He is perhaps the most famous Auror in the modern times of the Wizarding World, single-handedly responsible for capturing numerous wizard criminals. He is also said never to have killed his quarry, even when permitted to do so, unless he had no other choice.

Moody's face is badly scarred, he has lost several body parts, including his left eye, right lower leg, and part of his nose, in fighting Dark wizards, and is cautious - some characters might say paranoid - in that he refuses to eat or drink food which he has not himself prepared.

His magical eye can rotate 360 degrees and see through almost everything (including walls, doors, Invisibility Cloaks, and the back of his own head). He walks with a pronounced limp due to his prosthetic leg, and uses a walking staff.

He has entered his own psychomanteum and is unable to escape from Life after Life.

he seems a rather confused old man.

“In case there is any doubt about his position, he concludes, "I remain unconvinced that there is life after death or that reason can prove it."

If I would have stopped my research or just continued my research into NDE’s then I too would be hesitate to claim a life after this life exists in any form of consciousness. But there are aspects of NDE’s that cannot be explained by materialistic beliefs.

From my point of view NDE’s give me a hint and encouragement that indeed life after dearth exists as when I started my research I highly suspected that life after death did not exist.

As I read on an atheist blog science has not been able to prove yet that the brain creates consciousness but this person was sure it would be discovered soon in this century. And so goes our beliefs and their power over our minds.

Now as far as proof that depends on our operational definition of proof. The advaita folks don’t even believe we exist in this life; it is all an illusion.

As far as scientific proof as much scientific proof has been attained as evidence that meets the requirements for scientific proof as most other scientific discoveries including Darwinism.

“Wallace later developed an interest in psychical research and became a devoted Spiritualist. In writing about the phenomena of Spiritualism, which is based primarily on mediumship, Wallace stated that in their entirety they do not require further confirmation. He added:”
"They are proved, quite as well as any facts are proved in other sciences."
(Ebon, pg. 112)

This is from a Michael Tymm article in survivalafterdeath.org.uk website and I agree with Wallace and I believe that nothing has occurred in my research and experience that has proved Wallace’s statement as invalid.

The reality is that much more evidence has been obtained to support Wallace’s assertion that the evidence from spiritualism based on mediumship has proved as well as any facts are proved in other sciences.

Of course not only from mediumship but other research into paranormal phenomena has provided evidence to support Wallace’s statement.

It appears that compassion is in order for Moody at this stage of his life.

This really surprises me. I was in contact last year with someone who is co-authoring a book with Moody that considers death-bed communications. I had submitted an experience to Moody's website and was contacted about having it used in an upcoming book. I haven't heard back from this individual for a while and thought perhaps my account hadn't made the final cut. Not a big concern. It would be sad though if the book went unfinished because Dr Moody is going through difficulties.

I have a question.

One of the evidences for life after death is deathbed visitations. People frequently report seeing their loved ones right before they die.

Another area of evidence is NDES. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any NDE accounts that immediately start off with dead loved ones visiting a person. It always happens later. Never immediately.

I think this is interesting for the following reasons. One of the key features of the NDE is that the persons death was a mistake, it wasn't meant to happen. Obviously in the case of death bed visions the person was supposed to die when he did.

So if the NDE is a mistake, that would easily explain why the dead loved ones are only seen later. They knew it wasn't supposed to happen so they didn't shpw up.

If I am right this shows how two different pieces of life after death evidences fit nicely together. It also seems very tricky for a skeptic to explain this away. Here is why.

Obviously a skeptic feels both events are hallucinations. What mechanism prevents both hallucinations from merging together into one? That seems to be a very selective hallucination process I would say.

Opinions please :)

agreed Kris. Very tricky indeed to explain from a conventional point of view.

I would be curious if anyone does know some NDEs that start off with the dead relatives. It doesn't hurt our case, but if they don't exist is strengthens our case.

Kris, your question is very good.

I wonder if a similar question could be posited in cases of deathbed visions:

Are there cases where a person has had a deathbed vision, but hasn't died?

I think I've read some of them, but I don't remember in this moment a specific case.

I don't think such cases, by themselves, confirms that that deathbed was hallucinatory. Perhaps the person was meant to died originally, but a "change of plans" (by God, or whoever) at the last minute avoid the person's death.

"Obviously a skeptic feels both events are hallucinations. What mechanism prevents both hallucinations from merging together into one? That seems to be a very selective hallucination process I would say."

A skeptic could force this reply: in cases of NDEs, we have unconscious patients, and the NDEs experience is known (by the rest of us) as a story related after of the actual experience.

Yes, the NDEer says he experienced that while unconscious, but the skeptic will argue that it's a posteriori reconstruction of an hallucination.

In cases of deathbed visions (the skeptic will argue), the patient is not fully conscious, only partially. The hallucination takes place in partial consciousness, that includes tha awareness of an upcoming death and the fear connected with it-- this fear could function as a trigger for the watching of the imaginary loved ones in the hallucinations.

Thus the hallucination is not an entirely physiological process (in contrast with NDEs), it's too a psychological one. It's a mixed process.

In conclusion, in deathbed the loved ones appear first because the hallucination occurs while the patient is semi-conscious, not fully unconscious. And this semi-conscious influence the contents of the hallucination.

In NDEs, the loved ones appear after because the hallucination occurs during full or complete unconsciousness very near to death, and the process is entirely dependent on unconscious, brain caused hallucination.

I find the above line of argument unconvincing but a skeptic would force something like that to keep disbelieving.

Interesting Zetetic

However I don't think it truly works. Many NDEs start off with the person conscious then becoming unconscious. So while conscious they should have hallucinated the dead visitors then when they fell unconscious the hallucination NDE happens. Of course when they come through they remember both parts and blend the stories.

Does anyone know of such a case? Surely one would have happened by now, such a blending is very plausible.

I still find it very interesting NDErs never to the best of my knowledge immediate report seeing dead loved ones. Very hard to explain away from a skeptical perspective.

Other little things. If NDEs are a hallucination why the uniform account of people speaking in telepathy? What neuro pathway causes that?

Why the uniform account of dead loved ones being in their prime when they are encountered? What is the neuro pathway that causes this?

ZC,
The sorts of experiences that Moody had been collected (and still is according to his website) are shared experiences of death.

When my Grandmother passed away, there were people who came to visit her that she could see and I could see, but when I asked my Aunt about those people she said no one had been in to visit Grandma but me. I couldn't understand why she wouldn't just tell me who they were and I actually got a bit annoyed with my Aunt. Grandma didn't want those people around when I was there and she used to send them away without telling me anything about them. As far as I know, no one else saw them.

I just thought of an NDE that fits the acid test perfectly. The Howard Storm NDE.

a.) He started off quite conscious, plenty of time to hallucinate dead loved ones.

b.) Then he had had hellish NDE.

Here is a case in which we could easily have found such blending. And it isn't enough for the skeptic to say he had an hellish NDE. Her is a case that should have produced dead love ones but it didn't. Remember he feels after all these are separate hallucinations. One should have easily rolled into the other. What mechanism completely prevents this blending?

I think Robert Crookall's writings are relevant here. Crookall observed that in cases where death was expected, deceased loved ones were often observed by the dying person. On the other hand, in cases of sudden, unexpected death (or near death), the deceased loved ones were not observed initially, but only later in the process.

His explanation was that when a person is dying, a "call" is sent out which his loved ones on the other side respond to. But if death is abrupt and unexpected, there is no opportunity to send out this call.

Thus the loved ones enter the picture a little later, only after they have learned of the event.

A lot of Crookall's writing concerns the differences between natural death and enforced death. By natural death, he meant a gradual, peaceful death; by enforced death, he meant a sudden collapse, accident, etc. He showed that evidence from a variety of sources (mediumship, NDEs, deathbed visions, esoteric lore) agreed that these two types of deaths differ in the way they are experienced. There is a different sequence of events in each case. See his book "Intimations of Immortality."

He actually went further and distinguished a third category of death - death by explosion! In this case the violent shock renders the deceased person unaware of anything for some period of time. He speculated that this is because the astral body is temporarily dissipated and must be re-formed.

Regarding Moody's position, I think it is nothing new. His book "The Last Laugh" contains many similar observations, and it came out several years ago. I think he is just very uncomfortable with drawing any firm conclusions about NDEs. He is more comfortable treating NDEs and "visionary reunions" as psychological and cultural events.

In "The Last Laugh" he says that he originally included a Part Two to "Life After Life" that disputed the idea that NDES are evidence, and treated them instead as intriguing cultural phenomena. His publisher talked him out of it. One wonders if "Life After Life" would have been so hugely influential if that material had been left in.

When I saw Moody he said that his interest in the psychomanteum was a means to bring relief to the living.

I'm not sure he would allow his position on what NDE's really are to jell in the interest of remaining objective enough to continue his research.
For this he deserves some credit.

Without Moody, there wouldn't be any 'NDE' research, so the old buffer has more than done his job and 'then some.' Maybe he just got sick of being in the survival camp and wanted some respect from the 'nasty poo-poo heads'( thanks,Breanainn).

On the point of DBV's (mentioned by ZC, Kris etc)...this curious phenomena has not been explained away by any research. In some ways it's even stronger than 'that' of the NDE, because it doesn't make any sense.
Brain pathology, drugs, religious expectation...none of them cut the mustard.

Why do people light up with joy just before their extinction ?

I don't know who Moody classifies as 'pseudo-scientists', but I think a lot of what passes for 'science' today is, itself, pseudo-science.

People often accuse 'creation scientists' of not being real scientists because they use science to further a religious agenda. The irony is, evolutionary scientists did exactly the same thing -- they just did it first. It's clear that the belief in evolution existed before the 'evidence' to support it. Darwin developed his theories during the 19th century, but radiometric dating wasn't developed until the early 20th century. Evolutionary scientists can interpret radiometric dating data to mean suggest that the earth is billions of years old, while creation scientists can use the same data to suggest the earth is only thousands of years old. The key is in the interpretation. Creation scientists are accused of interpreting the data with an agenda, but evolutionary scientists have done the same thing. Neither interpretation is a 'raw' interpretation. The 19th century materialists established themselves in the academic circles long ago though, and people living today have been force fed their materialistic interpretation of reality. So when someone criticizes their materialist paradigm, the criticisms are often met with scorn or ignored because it has become 'established' in the minds of many.

The commenter William said, "As I read on an atheist blog science has not been able to prove yet that the brain creates consciousness but this person was sure it would be discovered soon in this century. And so goes our beliefs and their power over our minds."

Atheists often don't like it when Atheism is branded as a religion, but as you can see, atheists do have faith. They have faith that 'science' will be able to explain everything some day. But what they really have faith in, is that 'science' will one day present a material explanation for everything. What they really believe in isn't 'science', but materialism.

As I've pointed out recently on my own blog, we should learn to separate scientists. The scientists writing revisionist histories and presenting materialist interpretations of reality are not the same scientists (engineers) who are developing computers, satellites, rockets, medical technologies, etc. I don't think all 'scientists' should share in the accomplishments of the 'tool-making' scientists. When you lump them all together, it allows the materialists to ride along with the success of others, giving the impression that the materialist interpretations of everything are more accurate than other interpretations. Before we go running to the 'scientists' (the materialists) everytime we have a question about something, I think we would all do well to recognize that a lot of what passes as 'science' are just materialistic interpretations of reality.

Why do people light up with joy just before their extinction ?

Maybe it’s because they realise that death is not the end!

Anyone who has sat with a dying person and seen their face light up as they see a loved one come to meet them or hear them call their name knows with out a shadow of doubt that extinction is a fallacy.

My father, who had gone to the window to get some air as he couldn’t breathe, suddenly turned to my mother and said “I’m going now, goodbye” fell back on the bed and passed away.

Three days after his funeral he returned through a medium and thanked me for what I said at his funeral.

Zerdini,exactly so. That's a lovely anecdote.

In the eighties book, 'The After Death Experience' (Ian Wilson, I think, not certain, though) a close to death Doctor (Macallum) came out of a deep coma and spoke clearly. His face was reportedly transformed...'It's marvellous,' he said totally lucidly, It's marvellous..I think I'm going now, It's marvellous! He died shortly after.
What 'on earth' did he see ? Quite obviously nothing from the earth !

I agree, steve -Zerdini is spot on.

I think Mr Moody may have been going through a dark night of the soul. Nobody is immune to that.

Personally, I haven't been quite moved by DBVs mainly because it seems too easily explained away as the brain hallucinating before death. There are a few interesting things I've heard of, such as at least one Alzheimer's patient who had a DBV or returned to a pre-Alzheimer's state before his/her death. Something like that really flies in the face of what we currently know about how the consciousness is affected by illness.

“So when someone criticizes their materialist paradigm, the criticisms are often met with scorn or ignored because it has become 'established' in the minds of many.”

My observation has been the criticisms have been more about scorn than ignoring and often outright obscene name-calling. I call these name calling incidents attacks. This puts these materialists right in the same room as the religious fundamentalists. If they were certain and comfortable with their beliefs and scientific “facts” they would not resort to name-calling.

“I don't think all 'scientists' should share in the accomplishments of the 'tool-making' scientists. When you lump them all together, it allows the materialists to ride along with the success of others, giving the impression that the materialist interpretations of everything are more accurate than other interpretations.”

This is very well stated and gives one much to think about. When we lump certain groups as one and the same we almost always error. Loved the tool making comment, as early in my career I was a tool room machinist working my way through college. This term brought back many memories for me.

“Atheists often don't like it when Atheism is branded as a religion, but as you can see, atheists do have faith.”

Faith appears to be a double edge sword we can have blind faith in our cherished beliefs that may be invalid beliefs or have faith in the intelligence of the universe and its laws or principles. I.e. such as karma and the law of progress.

“His face was reportedly transformed...'It's marvellous,' he said totally lucidly, It's marvellous..I think I'm going now, It's marvellous! He died shortly after.”

My wife and her sisters was with their brother when he crossed over and after he saw whomever or whatever in his hospital room his face became so peaceful and he took the time to tell every sister that he loved them and he crossed over within that hour with a look on his face of total peace.

Another interesting aspect of that day which I have alluded to before but worth mentioning again I hope is that physical objects moved in that room all on their own. That freaked out my wife and her sisters. I just found out recently that one sister yelled, “Dad if that is you quit doing that you are scaring us”. Then of course nothing more moved in that room.

My wife called shortly thereafter and kept stating, “your wont believe what just happened” over and over. Finally I claimed her down and said I suspect I will believe what just happened. As she was pulling out of our garage my last words to her was if he is looking around the room ask him what he sees. He was given 6 weeks to 6 months to live by the doctors but after he saw whomever or whatever he passed within that hour.

Talking to people like I do with my research agenda I hear stories like these on a weekly basis. Most people just keep it to themselves as they feel most people will just think they made it up as wishful thinking.

Hey AftBrn

I think you are looking for this article

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580392,00.html

The old Catholic establishment relied on blind faith. The 19th century materialists sought visible evidence for their beliefs. So today's adherents to scientism may not rely on 'blind faith', but they still nonetheless rely on faith -- faith in materialism, faith in materialistic interpretations of data, and faith that scientismists will one day develop materialistic interpretations for everything.

"The old Catholic establishment relied on blind faith."

I don't think that's quite true. When it came to verifying alleged miracles, the Church could be pretty hardheaded and skeptical. They created the post of "devil's advocate" (more accurately, Defender of the Faith) to grill witnesses and find inconsistencies in their testimony about miraculous events. The Church hierarchy rejected far more claims than it endorsed. That's not to say their investigations were impeccable, but there was a clear effort at fact-finding.

Incidentally, I disagree with the earlier suggestion that "creation science" is on par with modern evolutionary theory. While neo-Darwinism may not provide a full explanation of the emergence and development of life, I do think it fills in part of the picture. If there is something more going on, it may involve epigenetics or maybe self-organizing systems, or (more speculatively) Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields or Robert Lanza's biocentrism.

The idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is based on a very literal interpretation of Genesis. I think it is better to interpret these ancient sacred texts metaphorically.


.....and a literal view of nature shared by 55% of Americans. This is a terrifying statistic.

.....Thanks to Kris for the Time link. Very interesting and moving. Always thought Time erred on the materialist side of things, so bravo to them for publishing this.

Ben,yes, I think he may have gone through something like that.
Aftrbrnr,(that's difficult to spell)
The hallucinations of the dying are quite different from death bed visions, I can assure you. A long time-girlfriend of mine worked with the dying for nearly twenty years and told me tales that the medical profession probably hear everyday.
"He can go away, I'm not going with him"...etc
"What's he doing here, I never liked him...or.."How wonderful to see you, Roger....can't you see him dear?"( to my ex)

The 'tag' hallucination is a shoe to fit all sizes of feet. but it doesn't fit. Many patients are able to have dual conversations with the living and the dead and their vital signs are all normal.

"I was in contact last year with someone who is co-authoring a book with Moody that considers death-bed communications." - Sandy
------------------

Man, I hope there is a new book on death bed visions (DBV). I'm a huge DBV fan and I never get tired of reading about them. I've read all the books that are currently avaialable about DBVs. I'm currently re-reading The Art of Dying by Dr. Peter Fenwick. He has some neat DBV descriptions in there. The Art of Dying is an excellent book by the way.

In Sir William Barrett's book Death Bed Visions Barrett talks about a little girl named Daisy Dryden who was 11 years old when she died. Right before she died Daisy had some rather profound death bed visions and from the description she was quite lucid. Anyway, Daisy made the statement that the veil between this side and the other side is very thin, and they are right next to each other.

My point is that there are all flavors of contact between this side and the other side, and we give them different names, when in reality it is all just the same thing? Little rips or tears in the fabric of reality where we are allowed to glimpse the Spiritual Universe? And that is all we are allowed because it is the way it is for a reason?

excerpt from Daisy Dryden's DBV:
"Two days before she left us, the Sunday School Superintendent came to see her. She talked very freely about going, and sent a message by him to the Sunday School. When he was about to leave, he said, "Well, Daisy, you will soon be over the 'dark river.` After he had gone, she asked her father what he meant by the "dark river." He tried to explain it, but she said, "It is all a mistake; there is no river; there is no curtain; there is not even a line that separates this life from the other life." And she stretched out her little hands from the bed, and with a gesture said, "It is here and it is there; I know it is so, for I can see you all, and I see them there at the same time."
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/books/barrett/dbv/chapter3.htm

Hi Zerdini,
thanks for the detailed reply
Rod McKenzie

I had a chance to interview Moody a couple of years ago on skeptiko.com and he said the exact same thing, "system of logic incomplete... important to remain skeptical".

I enjoyed the conversation, but don't really get where he's coming from. As MP points out the "logic" thing seems rhetorical, and as far as being unconvinced... what how much more would it take?

“As MP points out the "logic" thing seems rhetorical, and as far as being unconvinced... what how much more would it take?”

How much more would it take? A profound personal experience such as a realization, an NDE, or an OBE, even a physical materialization is what is needed to be convincing but knowledge about others personal experiences alone will not remove such doubt. There is a knowing that has doubt and there is a knowing beyond knowing which removes doubt.

Now what I find interesting about the human ego is that it will often deceive others into thinking it has no doubt but its actions give it away. The human ego will “attack” others with rude remarks to try and disguise that doubt. We see this phenomenon often with atheists with their materialistic beliefs and often with those that hold strong religious or political beliefs.

So if we catch ourselves in an attack mode towards others that disagree with our beliefs we may want to reflect upon that mode of being and seek deeply into our doubts.

A knowing beyond knowing cannot be shared with others as a knowing beyond knowing can only be shared as intellectual knowledge. Moody appears to have collected knowledge and shared that knowledge with the world. For that I believe he is to be commended.

Moody got his PhD in Philosophy in 1969. I'd like to find out what he focused on and who was on the faculty at the University of Virginia at the time. It seems likely, however, that regardless of his particular focus, the department was dominated by the prevailing Anglo-American school established by Russell that reached its zenith in the logical positivism of A J Ayers. Continental philosophies such as existentialism would have been primarily a literary influence at the time (and scorned by philosophy students), and phenomenology would have made few in roads, if any. To grossly over simplify, it would have placed an emphasis on what was empirically observable combined with logically explicated language top arrive at the truth. While not necessarily atheistic, it was an approach that left little room for the experience of the experieincer (something that would have interested Heidegger, for example) and at the very least would have placed everything outside of the observable as unknowable, and therefore not the subject of philosophical inquiry. (Yes, bizarre, isn’t it?) At its best, the approach is a very useful way to define problems. At its worst, it is empty linguistic pyrotechnics.

Let me repeat that no matter what Moody studied himself, the dominate mode of philosophical discourse would have been along these lines. Even if he disagreed with it (as I suspect he would have) he would have felt the burden of logical positivistic proof on him. And that is what I think is important here. Moody’s strange ambiguity is not new. But early in his NDE research he could avoid drawing conclusions by stating that he was most interested in the therapeutic value. Who could argue with the thought of making dying people feel better by validating their experience as an ‘experience’, if not in its apparent meaning?

This side stepping became more difficult after Reunions because the questions of what people see in the mirror is unavoidable. To me, this is where he falls into logical posivistic trap (whether explicitly, intentionally or otherwise). He shies away from statements that are not ‘provable’ (because they can so easily by undermined ‘logically’). He instead attempts to limit himself to statements that will survive that kind of scrutiny. To us, it quite rightly comes off as convoluted and empty.

I suspect that if his philosophy training came a decade later, he would have been far more comfortable stating different conclusions. That said, we owe an enormous debt to him and clearly, no matter what his public statements, he accepts life after death as persuasively indicated. He’d feel better if he would just say it out loud.

(Sorry to take so long to make my point. Thank you for your patience if you got this far!)

"Sorry to take so long to make my point."

I thought it was a very interesting comment. Not too long at all.

Moody claimed to be a Platonist and that he read Plato regularly.
This fits with his desire to remain a researcher as opposed to an advocate.

I feel that you may have made a variety of serious mistakes in your journalistic style and criticism, in part because you are thinking like a rational expert or journalist, and this mode of thought is nearly useless in the arena it is being deployed. Let me correct myself: it is often dangerously hubristic and reductive.

The person in question is precisely the person who is in a position to question his own thought, research and discoveries. The fact of what he built or wrote has a great deal to do with this. To understand why, we may benefit from a brief exploration of two processes: the training of the Nafs (Islamic/sufi term) and the process of enlightenment as understood in Zen practice (not literature, practice).

There is no English concept like Nafs (almost the inversion of fans), it is not really ego, psyche or soul, because it is known to represent something like ‘a riding animal’. Believe me, there is no such concept in English, but a vaguely close one might be ‘weird angel’. In any case, the process of taming the Nafs is fraught with peril and confusion. One moment the Nafs will show you prophetic visions and connect you directly to dead relatives or or those of others, and as the pendulum of this process swings back to the other polarity, it will accuse you of lying, and usury and hubristic self interest in the name of your own self-importance. If you have a guide, this can be useful, but without one it becomes –extremely- confusing. Many people simply stay in one position (i.e.: I can talk to the dead, this must be good, I have a talent that can help people, let’s use it). Others go all the way to the other pole (this is all evil, confusion, I was wrong, I must return to God).

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

But the goal isn’t this. The goal is to ride the process through many phases. If visualized as a pendulum, the idea is to ‘ratchet the weight up the string a bit’ at the extremity of each swing. This begins the process of taming the Nafs.

Zen practice has a somewhat similar concept which is illustrated in the ‘Ox Herding Pictures’.

What he says about ‘a way of knowing ’ or supplementary ways of thinking is a clear sign that he is and has been engaged in this process, since this is the precise outcome of having survived and remained ‘in the game’ for a number of passes from side to side. What ends up happening is that a lot more information is available to the experiencer with each pass, such that previous positions are immediately revealed as ‘not entirely false, but definitely untenable’. Eventually, a really amazing form of –learning in novelty- arises, which has aspects of prophetic understanding and profound wisdom. It involves a kind of cognitive game where flow takes precedence over structure without disregarding it (our normal polarity is quite the opposite). I am intimately familiar with these problems, and have myself for many years been at work on a solution that could be used by those not yet engaged in the extremely perilous game of the pendulum and its polarities. Here is a quote from some of me recent work that illustrates my point:

“Unexpectedly, opposing ourselves to wrongness turns out to be a deadly trap, for the polarity of error is not correctness, but stupidity. Instead, we must together establish entirely new ways of understanding, in which it becomes possible to experience the rapid and ongoing 're-correction' of any previously held idea or model. Without this capacity, the struggle for real learning, liberty and liberation becomes a toxic illusion. Such illusions invariably draw us into violence against ourselves, the world, and others.”

Of course, your own work is a part of this process, and even these critiques you offer, which I consider misfounded, comprise a crucial move in a game of ‘snakes and ladders’, in which, properly understood ‘an error is far better than success’. For that and other reasons, I thank you sir, and wish you every success in your investigations.



“One moment the Nafs will show you prophetic visions and connect you directly to dead relatives or or those of others, and as the pendulum of this process swings back to the other polarity, it will accuse you of lying, and usury and hubristic self interest in the name of your own self-importance.”

I suspect they believe this pendulum process is needed to quell any spiritual ambition that is often associated with a misguided desire for enlightenment. The ego is so deceptive coming face to face with it is often a very mentality painful experience. If we look close, life is like this the highs of “successes” and the lows of embarrassment and humiliation that provide the friction to develop the soul.


“Tehqeer or Contempt. You must look at your good acts with contempt otherwise you will become self-righteous.”

Not sure contempt is the right word here but it depends on how we define contempt. There appears to be several definitions of the word contempt.

Good acts may have more to do with our ego’s misguided desire for self confirmatory ego gratification then we could ever fathom. Maybe that is why they use the word contempt.

“Unexpectedly, opposing ourselves to wrongness turns out to be a deadly trap, for the polarity of error is not correctness, but stupidity”

This is an interesting comment could you elaborate on this statement please. I think I prefer the term ignorance rather than stupidity.

Orgnaelle, if Moody wants to develop a new system of logic, more power to him. But if he's doing it because he thinks "life after death" is inherently self-contradictory, then he's simply confused. I have seen this argument used elsewhere - by Antony Flew, for example - and it is a purely semantic quibble.

What I really object to is Moody's cavalier dismissal of parapsychologists, many of whom have done very valuable work.

"you are thinking like a rational expert or journalist"

Thank you!

"and this mode of thought is nearly useless in the arena it is being deployed."

If you're looking for a nonrational approach, you're at the wrong blog. I try to take a reasonable, fact-based approach to subjects that might be considered irrational or even crazy.

Charles Tart's recent book The End of Materialism captures the tone I strive for.

"he's simply confused"

Sixed mignals?

Here's a link to an excerpt from the book Magic, Mysticism, and the Molecule by Micah A. Hanks, describing his experience with R. Moody's Psychomanteum, a recreation of an ancient Greek therapeutic mirror-staring technique.

http://gralienreport.com/book-reviews/labyrinths-of-the-mind-an-excerpt-from-magic-mysticism-the-molecule/

The comments to this entry are closed.