It's never easy

Finally, my thoughts have materialized into reality and I have a very minor cold (about the strongest illness that I can manifest).  Someone I know is back in the hospital--not due to psychosis this time--but a significant depressive episode that  gradually built up after the death of a family friend. I, being the non-religious mystic, regard death as, the Masonic ritual informs me, a kind messenger sent from our supreme Grand Master. She is devoutly Christian, but fears death. To me, this is significant.

Always before she heads for her breakdown, before she loses contact with reality, she passes on a story about one of her friends' after-death communications "because you're interested in that."  It's one of the markers that tells me that she's on her way down.  The latest story involved a dream by a man of his deceased father. The father conveyed the usual reassurances but also mention something very significant. He said that it had been very difficult to arrange the dream meeting. He had to overcome a lot of hurdles to establish contact. It wasn't easy, and it took time and effort. Which makes sense. If it was *easy*, contact with the deceased would be common. It's not. This is why I am very skeptical of the Sylvia Browns and the James Van Praaghs.

NDEs explained! And a side note

Imagine my relief today when I opened up BBC News in my RSS reader and discovered that near-death experiences are now explained!  Should I demand all my money back that I've spent on countless NDE books?  "Not so fast," says the faux angel on my shoulder.  Scientists have merely observed a spike in gamma brain waves at the moment of cardiac arrest in lab rats.  This could mean a number of things.  One Seth quote that has lingered with me is, to paraphrase, "The reason that we consider physical death to be a terminal event is that we are unable to observe the transformation of energy."  A massive transformation of "energy" occurs at the moment of physical death, a fact that has been anecdotally documented by contemporary near-death researchers... they are generally labeled "shared NDEs."  Perhaps what scientists are witnessing is such an event.  So, perhaps scientists need to do more research (and journalists more proofreading) before announcing that NDEs are "explained."

And a side note... I've been getting lots of hits lately on a post that I wrote several years ago about Jonas Elrod.  Some are following links suggesting that Elrod is a "fake"... others follow links that suggest that he's truthful.  I am embarrassed to confess that I no longer remember who Jonas Elrod is.  And I'm too embarrassed to re-read my article to refresh my memory.  As I've mentioned a number of times, I no longer follow the paranormal.  I don't think I've missed a thing.  I now describe myself as a meta-physicist (or meta-physician); I'm interested in the study of consciousness and in the way consciousness interacts with what we call "reality."  While I find lots to suggest that the materialistic viewpoint is valid--it's hard to argue with measurable reality and validated facts--I also find lots of niggling flaws and contradictions that also suggest that the reality that we consider valid is, in fact, manufactured, created.  Reality is simply more complex than we currently are consciously able to observe.  Paranormal researchers study the "mistakes" in the matrix and attempt to map an alternative reality.  However, if consciousness "forms" reality, then is it not also "forming" paranormal reality?  In other words... a study of paranormal phenomena will be skewed by the paranormal beliefs of the observer and may be no more "true" than observations of the conventional materialist.

Is it possible to hallucinate an NDE?

Has the NDE narrative become so culturally endemic that the expected phenomena--the tunnel, the bright light, the warning to "turn back; it's not your time"--can be hallucinated?

I ask, because I've just been the recipient of such a narrative, and I'm not sure that I believe it.

This is apart from the patently fabricated accounts; since I've become a paranormal über-skeptic, I now disbelieve much of what I read on the subject.  But I'm wondering if some reported NDEs are hallucinated.

Quantum Entanglement: What Would Seth Say?

Halfway through composing this entry, by an amazing synchronicity I glanced at the cover of this week's New Scientist magazine and noticed the feature article:



Part of me is surprised that science hasn't figured this out yet. Could it be that this is the reason we don't yet have flying cars and Spacely's Sprockets?

Probably. Despite years of wrangling over the conundrum of quantum entanglement, or "spooky action at a distance," science cannot make the big leap to a complete embrace of quantum theory because quantum entanglement violates causality.  Classic science still rules.

Yet, it was the easily observable fact that strict causality not only can be violated, but often is, that launched my interest into metaphysics. I was quite a serious science student in my youth, so when I began keeping a dream journal and documenting clear examples of precognition, I knew immediately that science was "wrong." And still is: "Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause." (Hyman, Ray: "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims" as cited in Wikipedia).

In other words, precognition breaks strict causality. And strict causality cannot be broken, because it not only informs our entire understanding of the universe, but also violates a significant part of our religious and social canon. How can you be punished for your sins when there is no cause-and-effect?

Yet, on a weekly basis in my mid-teens, I documented personal examples of precognition that defied causality. The reality of my experience contradicted the dogma of official science.  And still does, in fact... My precognitive hunches are reliable and consistent enough to function as a sixth sense. I personally could not function--would not want to function--in the material world without them.

Fortunately, Seth stepped into the breach fifty or so years ago (in our terms), halfway through "The Early Sessions" (Volume Two):

If cause and effect were an absolute law, then continuity would also have to be an absolute law, and all or any evidences of clairvoyance, or viewing the future, would be absolutely impossible, even in your universe, and this simply is not so. It is only because there is basically no cause and effect, but merely apparent cause and effect, and no past, present and future, that clairvoyance is possible in your universe.

And while awareness of clairvoyance is fairly rare, it does exist; and though watered down in most instances, is a natural method of warning individuals of happenings with which their own outer senses would not be familiar. It is a natural method of protecting the individual by giving him an inner knowledge of events. Without constant clairvoyance on the part of every man and woman, existence on your plane would involve such inner, psychological insecurity that it would be completely unbearable.

I've devoted quite a bit of camouflage time pondering the conundrum of causality versus free will because I think that unraveling this mystery will open up access to other dimensions of experience. The answer is there, somewhere--and I hope to find it. After all, science hasn't, yet, though it appears to be headed in the right direction (although my hunches tell me that a New Scientist writer would not want to be cited in a metaphysical blog of this nature):

We live in space-time, and experience causal order within it, yet causal order is not apparently fundamental to quantum theory. If we accept quantum theory as the most fundamental description of reality that we have, it means that space-time itself is not fundamental, but emerges from a deeper, currently inscrutable quantum reality. (Michael Brooks, New Scientist, August 3, 2013)

A noteworthy ADC

I regularly browse Dr. Jeff Long's ADC website because I firmly believe that the truest accounts of contact with the non-physical are in humble, personal experiences, not in the overwrought books of psychic celebrities. So I thought that this personal account by Nicola was a compelling read, and if I can drive traffic to it, I will. There, you will read the fascinating story of that old cliché--the carnival fortune-teller--who is in fact a "real" clairvoyant, and who makes a bold prediction--which comes true; a homeless man who delivers confirmation of Nicola's father's presence by singing her father's favorite song (one of my faves, too); a communicated message from the father of a "surprise" for the daughter--and it is a surprise so remarkable that I regard it as supernatural. All of these synchronicities are woven so carefully into the fabric of Nicola's daily life that, to outsiders, they are unremarkable. But to the individual who is in the habit of looking for them, synchronicities such as these are clear evidence of a "greater" reality that underlies and envelops our physical existence.

I think that this is the reason that I'm skeptical of many (if not most) published and/or famous paranormal accounts. Most are too over-the-top; too "amazing"; too unbelievable; too contrived. Genuine experiences tend to be subtle and largely invisible except to those who are meant to experience them. And the proofs are also unimpressive to the outside observer--but carry profound symbolic meaning to the experiencer.

A recent experience

I'm at the stage of life where I attend funerals rather than weddings. So last week was devoted to the memorial of someone I've known for many years. Prior to the passing, I was awakened at about four a.m. by the very real sensation of someone rubbing my right hand. The sensation was enough to pull me from a very deep sleep and scare me. I later learned the decedent's daughter had an almost identical experience at exactly the same time: she was awakened by the sensation of a hand rubbing her shoulder. We don't really know who had visited us, but I suspect it was the decedent, who was pass away later that evening.

My reason for suspecting the decedent is simple: it was a physical sensation. Encounters with individuals who have passed on (and graduated beyond the near-physical plane) are almost always non-tactile.

A simple, unremarkable experience... Millions have had the same experience. Still, how is it possible to "feel" something that's not physically there?  A simple question, not often asked, but it has profound implications. What, indeed, is doing

"Eyes Of An Angel" by Paul Elder

I'm almost finished with this book and maybe will have more to say on it later... And while I had a lot to say about it when I began it, I have less to say now; the reason being, it tends to agree with much of what I've read on the afterlife elsewhere. This has been noticed by other critics. There is almost a cookie-cutter aspect to the information.  Read any contemporary NDE or OOBE book (or even a well-channeled New Age tome), and you will find nothing to disagree with what Mr. Elder has described.  He even replicates Seth's analogue of God, "All That Is."

The book is exceptionally well-written (better than anything I could have done); a well-paced narrative with nary a misplaced comma or misspelling.  It flows, engages the reader, and is never boring.

If Mr. Elder's information agrees with much of what I have already decided to be "true," does that make his book also "true"?  Not really, but not that it matters. His two near-death experiences and his colorful adventures at the Monroe Institute are somewhat understated, but very significant, if true.  If it is indeed possible to have directed OOBEs via Monroe's patented Hemi-Synch method to Level 27 and beyond, to planes of existence beyond the near-astral level, to a Hall Of Records that sounds very much like the Hall Of Records in other writings, this is a major friggin' deal, indeed.

The dissonance that some readers get is that something of this weightiness demands a bit more than an artful recounting. This is more on the level of, "Holy shit!"  You certainly get this with Dr. Alexander's much-maligned and unfortunately titled "Proof Of Heaven."  Possibly, this aspect of Elder's story was excised by over-zealous editors and proofreaders. I would certainly like to know. Paul Elder is someone who I'd like to sit down with over a beer and ask, "Okay, cut the New Age crap; tell me the real scoop."  It is why I find the writings of Ingo Swann and John Keel endlessly fascinating.  They hint of a greater reality that is in many respects more fascinating and complex than our observed reality.  I would be disappointed with anything less.