Hungry ghosts

Based on a recommendation from someone at the Paratopia boards, I'm going to pick up a copy of "The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts: A Riveting Investigation Into Channeling and Spirit Guides," by Joe Fisher. It was written by a journalist who set out to investigate, but then ultimately expose, a purported "channel." Per the descriptions that I read, Fisher was initially sucked in by the spirit, only to have his life ruined by the spirit's advice. Shortly afterward, Fisher committed suicide, feeling that his life had been ruined and that he had been cursed by the spirits who were angered in his expose'.

I guess that this is why I am universally harsh on channelers, particularly those who predict impending apocalypse: people actually believe them, and lives are ruined. Personally, I think that it's very unconscionable for anyone to be allowed to appear on "Coast To Coast," claim to communicate with spirits, then tell a million-plus audience (per George Noory) that their world is about to be destroyed. Simply wrong.

But Joe Fisher's story bothered me for another reason. It demonstrates that personalities, entities, consciousnesses, or beings of some sort exist in our world, entities that are quite malevolent--entities that have the power to destroy.

I do not quite know what "this" is. Though I came from a Christian fundamentalist background, I do not really "believe" in demons (just as I am agnostic about angels). I somewhat understand the New Age argument that "there's no such thing as evil," that our perception of evil is a distortion based on our limited perceptions in time and space--still, what do you call a thing that you cannot see, did not invite, do not welcome, but has the power to invade and wreck your life?

It is a reality that anyone who peers too closely into ghosts, UFOs, or any other paranormal subject begins to sense--there is indeed something there, and sometimes, that something isn't particularly nice. And it can follow you. This has happened--and is happening--to me. What is it? A projection of our own creation, a conglomerate of our own fears? Or perhaps a discarnate intelligence of some sort that feeds on fear? Is it some artificial, location-specific intelligence, a relic of a past civilization, that's triggered by, and then mirrors and amplifies, specific biological emotional responses? Or is it a spiritual gatekeeper put in place to scare humans who attempt to wander too far from consensus reality?

Seth (the only "channeled" personality that I think has any validity) argues that we are born here to learn the difficult lesson that we are powerful beings that create the reality we experience. We have chosen, at this stage of our development, an ego that sees itself as separate from the reality that it creates, in a world of dualities. We learn our lessons within those dualities.  Intellectually, intuitively, and experientially, I know that this is most likely "true." I just wish that, occasionally, reality wasn't quite so "real."

"The Jesus Transcript"

I've been skimming Joe McMoneagle's book The Ultimate Time Machine and and I think it's quite interesting. So far, many of his predictions seem too far into the future to be verifiable (except against other similar prognostications).

However, what I find fascinating is "The Jesus Transcript," during which he "remote viewed" the Christ figure. The only similar account that I've run across is the lengthy discussion in Seth Speaks, and I am finding some interesting correspondences between the two accounts, which I'd like to analyze later in detail. Was McMoneagle conscious of Seth's discussion when he did his session? Impossible to say, though he does quote Seth Speaks at the beginning of the book's introduction. Based on the drib-drab of Biblical knowledge that I still retrain, the information that McMoneagle presents about Jesus is both historically credible and theologically fascinating (though fundamentalists will likely be offended). (But, to quote Wallace Stevens, "Wink most when widows wince.")

His other time experiment, when he remote views a strange animal race that was the predecessor of modern Homo Sapiens, reminded me of the aquatic theory of human origins... There is a minor school of anthropology that hypothesizes that the Homo Sapiens species was originally an aquatic species, spending most of its time in water. Again, I don't know if McMoneagle was consciously aware of this hypothesis, or if he did, whether it had any bearing on his "view."

Clearing my paranormal palate with a vintage Joe McMoneagle, 1998

I have been overdosing on New Agery lately. You would think that the field would have learned by now that discussion of polar shifts is *so* Twentieth Century.  And I won't reveal the website that I found that discusses, without apology, the Illuminati, the Reptilians, and 2012--with nary a hint of irony or even a gratuitous disclaimer of, "I know this sounds crazy, but..." I found this site after being favorably impressed with someone's presentation on a paranormal-themed podcast; I thought, "This person sounds interesting; I'd like to learn more." This seems to be the rule: discover what appears to be a valid and interesting experiencer, only to learn that the experiencer has completely falling off the cliff of consensus reality and is hawking yet another site promoting gold sales and Ramtha-lite. It is, in fact, THE rule. George Hansen has identified probably the chief feature of people who attempt to peddle a paranormal-themed philosophy: They're crazy. They might have sounded sane, several books ago, and their ideas might have had some basis in experiential reality, but by the time I find them (which is usually late), they're certifiable.

Which is why I'm enjoying McMoneagle's "The Ultimate Time Machine." He is very grounded, very precise, and he highlights what, to me, is the strangest aspect of the phenomenon of precognition: it's either undeniably accurate, or it's completely wrong. Which is very strange. It makes little sense. If precognition exists--or doesn't--it would make more sense for predictors to be either partly accurate most, or less than most, of the time. But not very right, or very wrong.

Sounds like a flaw in the matrix, to me.

I haven't gotten into his predictions yet. Reviewers on Amazon.com have already warned me that, so far, many of them have turned out "wrong," and I am expecting that. But they forget: If he's correct on some of them, and his predictions are not foreseeable, what he is doing defies current scientific models of what reality is, which is quite significant.

A core truth defended by a thousand lies

I've been doing more than usual of my usual: listening to an assortment of paranormal-themed podcasts, buying books and whatnot--probably more than I have since the '80s. And I've concluded that probably 90 per cent of the material out there is drivel--complete fabrication, willful ignorance masquerading as enlightenment, deliberate disinformation, pseudo-philosophy, third-rate theological ramblings born of a fourth-rate understanding of discredited religious dogma.

How is this possible, when, at its core, the Paranormal (or at least our current understanding of it) best describes a truer nature of reality than found in official beliefs?  To wit:

Remote viewing (when practiced by skilled viewers) seems to demonstrate that consciousness can transcend time, space, and individuality and pluck detailed bits of information from remote locales with an accuracy that puts Google search to shame;

Precognition is real, despite being scientifically impossible. We can perceive future events long before they are probable, or even possible, with startling detail;

The deceased not only can contact the living with valid evidence that they have survived death but can often affect physical objects, predict future events, offer profound insights into not just their world but ours.

UFOs not only have been extensively documented as real physical objects, but (unlikely as it might seem) have apparently crashed, at least once.  (Remember, it takes only one white crow.)

How, then, with these core truths as a foundation, can the whole paranormal field be such a wretched tissue of absurdity?

Possible answers may be: "It's" designed that way. Or, perhaps, what appears to us as "true" may seem true only because we are conditioned to accept it as true. Or, our perceptions of what is true or untrue are irrelevant, since we perceive only symbols, or the surface.

In any case, this dichotomy that confronts the paranormal seeker might, ultimately, offer some useful clues into the ultimate nature of reality.

Just ordered "Tell Me About Heaven: A Firsthand Description of the Afterlife," by Suzanne Ward.

Just ordered "Tell Me About Heaven: A Firsthand Description of the Afterlife," by Suzanne Ward.  I'm listening to an interview of her on the brightside1 (I think that's what it's called) podcast; she strikes me as sincere and honest.

I haven't really taken to brightside1 in the past; the host has always seemed unprepared, even in this interview. But Ms. Ward's story is compelling and worth the listen.  I haven't found a reason yet to disbelieve her.

The material is "channeled," much like the direct-voice communication from "Princess Diana" that Hazel Courteney presents.  Speaking personally, I've never experienced anything remotely like channeling (except maybe once, and that is a unique story), but the process that Ms. Ward describes--thoughts running parallel to your own but distinct from your thought-stream--is something I have experienced, and the information I've gotten this way has proven very helpful.

Yes, I know that I start a bunch of books and read them in tandem and usually abandon them about half-way through.

BTW, George Knapp recently guested Paul Bannister on "Coast To Coast," and his interview stands out as the excellence that C2C is potentially capable of. Bannister was a fascinating guest, talking about his years with "The National Enquirer," which I read religiously in the early '70s; the rag is partly responsible for my interest in the paranormal.  It was, back then, an all-round compelling trashy read at a time when alternative journalism didn't exist. In any case, I was happy to hear Bannister confirm what we all already knew: the Enquirer's prophet, Jeane Dixon, had no psychic ability whatsoever, and most of her product was fabricated by staff writers. Why is this important? I never believed much of what she wrote at the time, but she was a significant disseminator of paranormal ideology for many Americans of the last century. As I've indicated by my broadsides on self-identified prophets, we should be very skeptical of public figures who claim to be able to see the future. There is market among the New Age for such people, and as we have all recently painfully learned, market forces will produce what consumers demand, often to our general detriment.

Recurring dreams of impending climate change

This morning I had a dream that matched, detail-by-detail, a dream that I had almost exactly twenty-five years ago.  In both dreams, I am digging through vinyl records in a store in a city; I'm in either a record store or an antique store.  Suddenly, the sky darkens as a massive storm moves in.  I hear the warning, "Everyone out!"  In this morning's dream, I crouch underneath the concrete supports of an overpass, believing that this would protect me.  A vicious storm sweeps by.

I've had this same dream, with minute variations, most of my life.  From my perspective now, during the increasingly unsettled summer of 2011, I now know that these dreams are beginning to come "true," though in what manner, is still obscure.  Are these dreams a foreshadowing of my own personal event horizon, my last moments on earth?  Or are they a more general warning of climate change that is already beginning to happen?

As I read through Hazel Courteney's "Divine Intervention," it's becoming apparent to me that the speaker (self-identified as Diana, Princess of Wales) has crafted her message as a subtle warning of sudden and catastrophic climate change.  Like many such writings, the warning is veiled, even deliberately obscured, for some reason.  But the evidence hidden within the book is apparent to me, since I have been bombarded with these dream warnings most of my life.
What I consider especially remarkable about the dangers incumbent with climate change has been how quickly our weather is changing, and how little is being said about it.  Within the space of the past five years or so, my area of the country has been hit by several destructive tornado seasons, as well as an unprecedented flood that laid waste to much of downtown Nashville and other cities along the Cumberland.  And each subsequent season brings weather more extreme than the preceding.

Climatologists make the argument that we do not have enough data to determine if these extreme weather events are simply part of a short-term trend not associated with global climate change, or the consequence of climate change.  Such an argument can be scientifically valid--after all, how many years of data does one need in order to say that one has "enough"?  But it is disingenuous, and most of us, intuitively, understand this, as each spring brings increasingly violent weather to larger swaths of the human population.

I actually think that I finally "get" Krishnamurti...

I had several ephiphanies while listening to Whitley Strieber interview Jeremy Vaeni for "Dreamland" on the way to work this morning.  In a way that's almost impossible to verbalize, the nature of Whitley's questioning seemed to cause several difficult concepts to click into place in a way that they hadn't before.  In the process, I also think I grasped some key principles of both "The Key" (which I read nine years ago but confess to never understanding), and the closely-associated Trickster phenomenon.  I arrived at work and in the middle of jotting down all my brilliant insights, a transformer blew out down the street, bringing down the computers and wiping out all my writing. These scattered impressions are all that remain.  And it's just as well. The concepts involved are impossible to communicate, much less teach... and superfluous to discuss.  They have to be intuitively grasped, and as often as not, once they are, they vanish just as quickly as they are grabbed.

I will return to this theme when I read "Urgency" (just as soon as I finish reading Hazel Courteney's book), but something tells me that I will be no more successful in my explications then than I am now.

Age-based discrimination

At my place of employment, I've been noticing a definite uptick in something that is illegal and widespread--a pattern of harassment and discrimination against older workers. It seems to reflect a pattern in wider culture that's been exacerbated by the "Great Recession" and by political shifts.

Has this discrimination always been there and I simply have not noticed it earlier because I was "young"?  Or is it part of some developing social movement?

Examples:

Though I don't have specific statics, news reports that I've heard all suggest that the recession has hit older workers hardest; the older you are when you are "downsized," the longer it takes to find another job. This is because, we're told, employers have their pick of prospective employees, and they'd much rather hire the young.

In my own place of employment, I've noticed an increase in both civil service actions, and outright harassment, against older workers. Those who can't be removed "legally" by civil service procedures are often hounded out of their jobs by a sudden increase of duties, or burdens that seem calculated to create hardships for older workers, such as excessive overtime mandates or physically-intensive duties. (Personally, I was made to clean up a large storage area while I was in the middle of massive office renovation; at another time, I was made to deliver a truckload of heavy equipment across the state while in the middle of a major install.)

When decisions are made on who to hire for vacant positions, one criterion that's at the forefront is the applicant's age. Although age is not listed on the application, codewords such as "when did he graduate from high school" or "how extensive is his employment history" are used instead. And applicants who are obviously older are invariably screened out.

Of course, this is all illegal (at least on paper), but nowhere have I seen any evidence that the existing federal mandates against age discrimination are being enforced, despite widespread anecdotal accounts of discrimination. But the problem with age-based discrimination is that it is not just illegal, it's also wrong. I have managed to succeed in my job despite all of the unilateral physical requirements because I am still capable of the same level of work that I was in my twenties. Becoming "older" does not cause the worker to become less productive. Quite the contrary--having weathered many storms, I work a lot smarter now. Most older workers are quite flexible and efficient and defy all stereotypes that are associated with becoming "old."

There is one factor that I haven't considered, and one that I never hear mentioned in the media: older workers often are paid more, simply because of seniority. It does make economic sense to fire one higher-paid older worker and hire one or more young graduates. There is a certain Darwinian logic to this, and America has never pretended to practice Capitalism any other way. If true that age discrimination is simply another unspoken mechanism to make America more "competitive," then we all have reason to fear for our economic future--because everyone, no matter how young they are today, will become old tomorrow.

Continuing reading of 'Divine Intervention'

I am about a third of the way through Hazel Courteney's book and have not yet found any reason to disbelieve it, though it is not easy accepting a direct voice communication from the deceased Princess Diana. I'm not familiar with that process--though I do believe that some who have been diagnosed as mentally ill for suffering from auditory hallucinations might be experiencing this.

Still, even if the speaker isn't Diana, what "she" has said mostly corresponds to what I've read in the Seth material and other authorities, such as:

*Human emotions effect weather. Unacknowledged by science (mostly because there's no mechanism for it), this is most probably true. I've noticed that weather disturbances correspond to economic depressions; bitter winter storms are experienced at scenes of major battles. These are things that I've noticed, anyway, and might be the inspiration for the "pathetic fallacy" involving weather behavior in Shakespeare's plays.

*Probable futures, affected by choice, as well as events "carved in stone."

*Hints of profound choices for humanity in the near future, which has been a running theme of New Age and mediumistic literature since I've been reading it (a long time), and the observation that this collective future will be influenced by the choices of every individual (Robert Monroe); or, alternately, each individual can choose to be a part of a collective probability (Seth).

*A definite sense of order and organization in the Afterlife, as well "elevated beings" who visit and teach (Michael Newton). Absent is any reference to a rigid hierarchy indicated in orthodox religions.

*Death as being "easy" and as a transition and more of a process rather than a sharp transition.

*"Diana" does depart from mystical orthodoxy by saying that many deaths and misfortunes are purely accidental and not "carved in stone." This agrees with the "Michael" channeled material, but I've come to believe that most experiences are part of a complex web involving numberless calculations, plannings, and unconscious agreements by the participants. "Diana" is emphatic on the importance of individual choice, however, and as we know, when we choose foolishly, accidents will happen.

"Diana" mentions the existence of an overarching worldwide power structure that is above government, and this group was planning to kill her if she had married Dodi Fayed. But she cheated them of this opportunity with her purely accidental death. Diana did fear that she was being pursued near the end of her life, and I don't doubt it. But I break with David Icke on the issue of Prince Charles, who I firmly believe is not a shapeshifting Reptilian, and who in fact has made a number of notable contributions to his community (including the advice to place bricks in commodes to conserve water).

Currently reading "Divine Intervention" by Hazel Courteney

I can't remember how I stumbled across this book (full title, "Divine Intervention: The Most Controversial True Story of Spiritual Contact and Enlightenment You Will Ever Read"), but I picked it up for a very good price at Amazon.com and I'm finding it to be a real page-turner.  I started reading it last night and stopped only because it was time to go to bed.

The basic premise of this book is that the spirit of Diana, Princess of Wales, initiated after-death contact with a holistic health journalist whom she had previously met only casually.  Ms. Courteney seems to have been specifically selected by Diana to tell her story.  After experiencing a range of severe and seemingly physical trauma (which she calls a "spiritual crisis")--which, in retrospect, obviously mirror the injuries that Diana suffered in her fatal car accident--Ms. Courteney begins to receive direct-thought communications from "Diana."

In order to accept this story, the reader has to make a massive leap in belief: That Princess Diana would communicate in this way, and that Ms. Courteney is the chosen channel for it.  However, I know that such things are possible, and for now, I haven't found any reason to disbelieve it.

I was drawn to this book because, in the fourteen years since Diana's death, I have always wondered what her last moments were like.  And like the millions who were traumatized by her death, I left with more than the usual number of unanswered questions: there were too many loose threads left hanging.  The worldwide trauma that resulted from her death suggests that there is more to the story than we consciously know, and certainly more than we were told.  Will this book answer these questions?  And more importantly, will it answer them credibly?  I will let you know.

I generally don't pay much attention to mediumship accounts, mostly because there's no way to verify the information.  And most of the public, televised, and book-publishing "mediums" (you know who they are) are probably bogus.  But Ms. Courteney strikes me as different.... mostly because she does not strike me as being "that" sort of medium.  She did not have a career as a medium, and although she is a writer, "Divine Intervention" reads like a publication sorely in need of an editor. It's well-written but unpolished; which, strangely enough, makes to story told more believable.

Precognitive dream of the 1993 Big Bayou Canot train wreck

June 26, 1993. Saturday
This morning I dreamed that I was by a road; it was a paved, small highway. Much of the dream is forgotten. I remember only this scene: A large tractor-trailer truck came lumbering toward a bridge. I knew intuitively that it was going to jump the bridge and crash, which it did, tumbling to a river below. Because it was going fast and was so large, it curled under the bridge and came partway up the other side. It was a major accident; several people were killed instantly. I saw some men bringing a heap of bloody and mangled bodies, and depositing them in front of me.

In the dream I saw a truck, but the real event, of course, involved an Amtrak train. From the current Wikipedia description of the event:

At approximately 2:53 AM, Amtrak's Sunset Limited train, powered by three locomotives en route from Los Angeles, California to Miami, Florida with 220 passengers and crew aboard, crossed the bridge at high speed and derailed at the kink. The locomotives slammed into the bridge superstructure, causing its destruction. The lead locomotive embedded itself nose-first into the canal bank and the other locomotives, as well as the baggage car, dormitory car and two of the six passenger cars, plunged into the water. The locomotives' fuel tanks, each of which held several thousand gallons of diesel fuel, ruptured upon impact, resulting in a massive fuel spill and a fire. Forty-seven people, 42 of whom were passengers, were killed, many by drowning, others by fire/smoke inhalation.

Accepting that this is a genuine precognitive perception of the event that occurred on September 22, 1993 in Mobile, Alabama (and I believe that it is), I look back now and wonder dreams of such "numinous" (as Joe McMoneagle would say) events occur; what is the purpose of such dreams? We can't prevent the event; and, usually, we are not tied to the event. For me, the answer is, probably, such events reflect my strongest phobias. I am deathly afraid of airplane travel, and I am only slightly more confident of traveling over bridges... Any mode of transportation that puts me in an elevated place will call out my biggest fears. So, it's only natural that I would dream of such events. It's also possible that this might be an "astral rescue" event as described by Monica Holy. I really don't know. Because such experiences are rarely acknowledged, much less studied, we have only speculation.

Why does precognition fail? Why does it succeed?

Speculation...

Our world is enclosed in a larger reality, and our consensus reality is manufactured ("co-created") by beings, forces, or even machines external to it. Our focus on a narrow band of sequential time is constricting, and does not take into account the fact that many events are "larger" than they appear to us. Our higher selves are aware of this larger gestalt and cannot translate those perceptions in any meaningful way to us, who insist on perceiving events in a narrow, cause-and-effect format.

(BTW, this is why conspiracy theories have surface plausibility. A mass event--such as the Kennedy assassination, which is touted by many conspiracists--likely has many causes, woven among myriad actors stretching across time. Point to any thread as the primary "cause," and you are likely to be partially correct--while ignoring the greater reality of the event.

Seth mentioned the JFK assassination in passing in one of the Seth books, and his observation is unique; I've never seen it made anywhere else. Basically, he said that the assassination occurred because it was the "best" way that the civil rights movement could be advanced. And, in a peculiar way, this is correct. Lyndon Johnson took advantage of the national mourning over Kennedy to push through monumental civil rights legislation, which would have been stymied under a Northern President. Was the CIA behind the murder? Johnson himself? The mafia? It didn't matter. They were merely actors. The play was the thing.)

So, we often are looking for "parts" of the future while blind to larger causes or trends. Or we mistakenly extrapolate quite valid perceptions of future events and follow them to incorrect conclusions.

An example from my own attempts; in 1987, I dreamed the following:

July 20, 1987. Monday. 5:20 a.m.
I seemed to be outside a house that seemed to be my childhood home in 1969.... Suddenly, a woman stepped out of a car ahead of us and pulled out a large-caliber pistol. She aimed it at the window of an old building and shot it out. She then aimed at something else and shot it also. I kept hoping that someone would come out and stop her. I then began thinking of examples of people being shot by hand guns and how horrible such a death must be. I thought of the Viet Cong spy who had been shot in the head by General Ky in the streets of Saigon.

My interpretation? A health dream, and frustration over my living situation. A few weeks later, I re-read the dream and immediately saw what the scene was describing: the dramatic ending sequence of Full Metal Jacket, a movie that I would not see until August 1. I had interpreted an allegorical event as literal, although my dream had very accurately predicted a "future" experience two weeks in advance.

So, when we perceive (or think we perceive) massive devastation from an asteroid attack, are we seeing a literal future event, or merely some movie we might see next week? Indeed, if we do not know what we are in fact seeing, is it ethical to broadcast such an event as real to thousands, perhaps millions, of listeners or readers? If we can indeed predict the future, as so many Coast To Coast claim to be able to do, does it behoove us to acknowledge a certain moral and ethical responsibility to try to be accurate?

On a larger scale, and perceived outside our time-space consensus reality, our physical world is merely a play; it is an immersion into a world of sharp, vivid perceptions that we co-create, for purposes unknown. Some events will be materialized and perceived as "real" by those participating; others will not. The part of consciousness that exists outside of our day-to-day lives, however, perceives the whole, and occasionally, these perceptions bleed through to consciousness. But what we perceive is a small fragment, and the "bigger picture" is often not recognized for what it is well after the physical event takes place.

So, while predictions often fail for myriad reasons (including outright fraud), how is it that we are able to see any future event at all?

To be honest, I don't know. Mainstream scientific models do not incorporate any mechanism whereby human consciousness can see any future event; it is, scientifically, impossible. This is the "rule." As long as we consciously insist that precognition is not "real," we will marginalize such perceptions and likely never truly understand their origin and purpose. But I have a few hunches, and they all center around flaws that exist in our root assumptions of reality...

*While our physical consciousness interprets experiences and events within an extremely narrow, and sequential time framework, it may be (and is quite likely) that our perception of time is artificial, and that the origin of all major mass events is outside of our physical space-time. While our physical consciousness must interpret reality on a literal time scale (or else, be declared insane), other parts of "us" are not so constrained.

*Our entire perceived physical reality is manufactured. To manufacture something, you must have blueprints and plans. While this does not require our future to be predestined, it does suggest that there are guidelines. In our conscious daily lives, we are ignorant of those plans, but in order for us to play our roles correctly, *some* part of us must be aware of the plan.

To truly grasp the notion that our physical reality may not be quite real, we must step outside of the framework, and this is something we can't do. (Well, we could, but we probably wouldn't be able to come back.) The best we can do is model it. It might mot be a bad idea, at this stage of our planet's evolution, to attempt to do this.