victorialis

Sure. Such claim stories abound, and they always have. In fact, there is currently a TV program offering the very sort of thing you're describing: it's called "Crossing Over." I haven't seen it; I think it's a US program, but there's plenty of discussion about it on the web.

There's one big difference, though: these people "get in touch" through the intermediary who presents the program. They don't attempt direct contact in the way you've alluded to. The methods of the medium/chaneler/whatever-he-is don't stand up too well to scrutiny; belief, grief and need in those who participate are easily manipulated into a gratifying subjective experience.

There is an argument that the solace provided to these people is valuable for its own sake, regardless of the mechanisms involved. The counterarguments to this are obvious; but how can we evaluate the relative worth of someone else's solace? I'm in no position to do it.

What's interesting to me about the "Crossing Over" phenomenon (and all its historical predecessors) is the willingness of the participants to accept what they're given by a charismatic figure whom they know personally not at all. They accept his mystique without question.

What I take from that is: they are willing to believe that this guy has some special capacity they don't have, and that he manages it successfully.

All kinds of interesting things are implied therein.

I know I am among rationalists here, so for the sake of brevity I acknowledge in advance all the rational arguments against this sort of thing. I take all of those, without quarrel, as given.

victorialis

demon-sword, it has just now occurred to me that the person you have in mind is not a deceased person. I apologize for the presumption.

Ruy Lopez

[QUOTE]Originally posted by victorialis:
[QB]demon-sword, it has just now occurred to me that the person you have in mind is not a deceased person. I apologize for the presumption.
---------

Yes, probably not deceased. I think the idea I'm trying to arrive at is whether the spirit world is real outside of the observer and not just inside his brain. The computer and the internet is a good analogy. There are things that are inside my computer(brain) and those outside which my unit can access. Since you seem to be a buddhism buff, what does the philosophy say or assume?

It also begs the question; since everything in the universe seems to have come from a common origin, should consciousness be similarly wired? Let's give it one last try.

victorialis

Buddhism says there simply is no "outside," so from a Buddhist perspective on your question I guess we're down to the word "real" and what we mean by that.

From a western viewpoint, real = existing outside the observer. That's the only accepted meaning of the word.

The computer and the internet is a good analogy. How much of what we perceive in our exchanges on this board is real outside of us, and how much of it do we supply through our individual mindsets (like my earlier mistake; I've been thinking of a dead relative lately)?

How much of the information we read on the internet is "real" beyond the html, and how much of it is made "real" for us by our willingness to believe that it's true (which is a complex personal formation that varies across individuals)?

Isn't "real," in this environment, purely a matter of agreement?

I'd go further. I'd suggest that "what is real" is always a matter of agreement. The agreement is provisional. It holds until a new agreement is formed. That may happen over a period of years, or minutes, depending on how many people have to be convinced.

Ruy Lopez

from Victorialis:
I'd go further. I'd suggest that "what is real" is always a matter of agreement. The agreement is provisional. It holds until a new agreement is formed
-----------

You did not explain what you meant by agreement. Between the perceiver and observed? Provisional in the sense that the observer can change his mind regarding what he sees? I tend to have problems with terminology describing abstractions.

I know for sure that there is an "outside" whether I am watching or not; that's why it is foolhardy to step in front of a speeding car. What you refer to in the Buddhist sense as the absence of the outside belongs to another level of speculative reality. I picked this up from your lengthly dialogue with Boneyard B.. I'll paraphrase the idea in my own words and tell me if I understood correctly.

Everything I see or experience becomes me and is unique to me. This is "real" because this new self(after the experience) was not there before. It's another way of saying perception is reality. This new self and its subsequent dynamic existence is the ACTOR or MOVER and is thus more "real", actually important, than the static object that provided the experience. How is that? I don't see the point though of saying there is no "outside".

victorialis

demon-sword, I appreciate your patience. This topic is a chewy one.

By agreement, I meant agreement among perceivers about anything they mutually observe. It is provisional in the sense that the consensus reached among perceivers is a product that can be changed. This consensus is not reality. It's an agreement about reality. Such agreements are necessary for cooperative endeavors.

I agree about the "outside" you're talking about. It's important that I make one thing clear: I'm not saying the accepted model of the "outside" is not accurate. I'm saying it is incomplete.
It should not be abandoned, or replaced; but for the purposes of what we're talking about here, it should be recognized that it is not all there is.

I was with you right up to the point about the mover being "more 'real'". I'm not sure this is meaningful all by itself (can "realness" be relative?), although issues of agency (responsibility and the ability to take action) are meaningful, crucially so.

I pick this particular nit because we could make a whole other thread out of those issues alone. Otherwise, I agree with your description.

It's a linguistic device meant to draw attention to the limitations created by dualistic and discursive thought. Your example of the speeding car is quite valid; it represents one kind of perception, and not one to be abandoned.

The ordinary sense of inside/outside is not meant to be challenged by this idea of oneness. It's supposed to challenge how we apply this limiting kind of conceptualizing to the entirety of reality. The ordinary sense, while safe, functional and practical, is not the last word. That's my understanding.

To an incredible extent, "real" is a political matter. Or, if you prefer, a social one. This isn't all bad. There's safety in it, and order. But there are always points at which the consensus pinches. And so it gets changed.

Ruy Lopez

To Victorialis:

That was much much better and clearer. Based on my original post and its objective, there is a much better understanding of what is involved and no one else outside can provide an answer. I'll have to find the answer myself even if make believe.

I guess we are really dealing with the internal disposition that makes people more in control of themselves. Thanks.

ShottleBop

From <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Book_Reviews/gods_in_the_brain.htm" target="_blank">Massimo's Skeptic & Humanist Web</a> comes this critical review of a book describing research regarding the brain state being discussed in this thread.

. . . and from <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/flynn_21_4.htm" target="_blank">the Council for Secular Humanism</a>.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: ShottleBop ]</p>

Lasrevinu

God is one, and we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Thor Q. Mada

OOOOH No!! another idiot!!