Blog powered by Typepad

« Once more into the breach | Main | Book review: The Immortal Mind »


This is the most interesting NDE account I have ever heard and I have heard a few. It may be a little off-putting in the beginning but stick with it and it will stimulate your mind in many directions. It's not that the actual experience is so different from other NDEs but what is implied in the simple account by Rick Kelley for me was so thought provoking and validating of what I have been coming around to believe that I wanted to share it with all of you. I highly recommend this NDE video. - AOD

Julie you are so right. Often we wake up in a family in which a lot went on before we arrived and which will be kept from us, maybe forever. We don't understand the real situation and think that other families are just like ours. We have nothing else to compare it with.

Just one piece of information concerning my parents and their families before I was born which I have come to understand, makes everything fall into place for me. I now understand, at my advanced age, why relationships in my family were what they were and am gaining insight as to why I am the way I am; and yes Julie, it is uncomfortable. -AOD

Way OT, but here's a link to a very good long form article (via the Daily Grail) concerning Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, which has been discussed on this blog in the past.

@Amos: 'All happy families are alike'. But all dysfunctional families are dysfunctional in their own way.

We are all victims of circumstance and our only duty is to do our imperfect best. I'd love to have done so many things differently. But given the same situations and circumstances again things would, I'm sure, turn out exactly the same. I do so hope we don't have to reincarnate.

There is a copy of Jaynes' book here on the shelf beside me. I bought it in he mid 1990s. I never could get along with his meandering style. Also, I feel it adds less to our understanding of the issues that concern (obsess?) him than does the selective attention work of Broadbent at Oxford University.

I have to say I really enjoyed the book, and I loved Jaynes's elegant prose style. But I don't think his argument holds up, and it hasn't caught on in academia.

A while ago I had a short interaction with the moderator of a website devoted to Julian Jaynes (I'm sure you can find it if you type the word "Jaynes"into the search engine on the left-hand side of this screen), and I came away with the distinct impression that Jaynes's followers today are of a rather cultish mindset. For instance, they claim that ancient inscriptions in cuneiform and hieroglyphics support Jaynes's thesis of the bicameral mind. But if you point out specific passages from the same era that clearly contradict Jaynes's idea, they reply that these passages have not been correctly translated. How do they know? Because the translations conflict with Jaynes! They will tell you, with no apparent sense of irony, that a proper Jaynesian translation is required.

Similarly, they will cite anthropological studies from the 19th century that seem to support the persistence of bicamerality in hunter-gatherer societies, but they will ignore more recent field studies that suggest nothing of the kind.

Basically, having arrived at their conclusion, they are interested only in evidence that fits, and willing to dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit. It's a strong case of confirmation bias. We're all subject of this fallacy, but the Jaynesians seem to carry it to an extreme.

Incidentally, here's a good example of a very ancient document that shows no signs of the bicameral mind; on the contrary, it suggests a very modern mindset:

More evidence of fundamentalism at work, this time from Jaynesians, our Michael? ;)


I watched the video, thank you! He basically validates the Nanci Danison approach (i.e., Grof's Cosmic Game approach). That is, our actions have no true moral content and all returns to Source. However, he did identify being in a sea of beingS, plural, so perhaps it is not exactly the same.

What I find interesting is that in neither case did the experiencer go into cardiac arrest. It's debatable whether they "died" at all.

We do have a kind of bifurcation of NDEs with respect to this issue. Let's call them Type I and Type II for now. In Type I NDEs, the experiencer has a life review that emphasizes the moral content of their lives and the meaningfulness of living Love. In Type II, our lives are called a stage play, a game, etc., and their moral importance is more or less dismissed. In the video AOD linked to, the experiencer literally says that a serial killer is not really "bad." He says that good and bad don't exist.

I do not think the latter view is entirely without merit, though I think that experiencers get a somewhat limited or incorrect takeaway. After all, Danison, the video experiencer, and Grof are all trying to relay what they see as Truth and seem to think that Truth is important. But if there were *no* values, then there would be no point in trying to convey the truth instead of falsehood (and the video experiencer was quite insistent and passionate). I think there is an internal contradiction in there.

I think the takeaway, so to speak, is limited in that they see that the Universe does a perfect job of making lemonade out of lemons, and things are all right in the end. I agree with that. But the idea that life is *just* a stage play with no moral content. Nope, don't agree.

This seems as good a place as any to say that don't believe that man, Rich Kelley. For one thing it seems odd that there was no one with him and no lifeguard to recognise that he was in distress and, for another, it seems that no one noticed him get washed up on the beach. But, even worse, I wouldn't buy a used car from that man. But I do think he's quite a clever man.

I thought that some people would be put off by Rich Kelley but I try to get beyond the personality of a 'used car salesman' as you describe him and listen to what he actually had to say. I didn't react to him as you apparently did, but I am a man and I personally like to hear these stories from men. For me, his gruff masculine personality actually made his story more believable. I can't say that I 'believe' him or not but if I were to fall on one side or the other I believe that he believes what he says. I always take these reports with a 'grain of salt'.

This occurred when he was 15 years old. I suspect he didn't look like a used car salesman then. And, based upon what he looks like in the video, I imagine the he was a rough and tumble young man, an agnostic as he says, who might be least likely to experience something like this.

Why is it important for you that a lifeguard was around, that someone was with him? I didn't understand that this event occurred on a public beach populated with other people. Why do these bits of information make or break your evaluation of what he says? For goodness sake, he is just relaying what he experienced. Do you think he is lying and if so, for what purpose? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think he has a book out there for sale as many of the other more notable NDEers do. I think that that is part of the point he was trying to make; nobody was around "on this side" to take him by the shoulder and point him toward the beach as he experienced happening to him.

Well, he is not selling used cars so you don't have to deal with him as a salesman. Cleaver? I don't know; he is just telling his story. What makes him "quite a clever man", Julie? - AOD

I really don't know, Amos. Call it feminine intuition. I feel he likes to tell a story and engage an audience. In short, while I have no doubt that NDEs are a genuine phenomenon, something about the man doesn't ring true. I almost felt manipulated as I listened to him. It's that still, small voice again.


I will grant that there is a certain cheese-osity to his manner. But that doesn't cause me to *definitively* dismiss his story. It all goes into the data banks and gets processed with fuzzy logic. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.