Hope for Hillary?

I haven't surveyed the current psychic climate for thoughts on the current Presidential election, but I ran across the following ... "Michael" believes that Donald Trump's resurgence is payoff to a karmic debt to Hillary from a prior lifetime. I see this as a tacit endorsement of Hillary by the Michael entity. (Not sure how this will square with God, who, as many will quickly tell you, is a Republican.) Sound reasonable?  Makes more sense than anything else that's been said about the Donald so far.

'Tis the season for a Seth quote...

Seth, the great expounder on all things material and non-material, arguably touched on every facet of the mid-twentieth century American experience (and even foresaw the trends of the present century).  So it's unsurprising that he had a few remarks concerning Christmas.

Jane Roberts was apparently quite non-religious, bordering on (if not outright) agnostic. It's useful to keep this in mind when reading Seth's discussions of God, Christianity, the Bible, and religion in general. Seth's nuanced and multifaceted religious observations did not come from Jane Roberts--they came from somewhere else. While I can certainly relate to Jane's experience, I choose to listen to Seth... For no other reason than he was in a better position to know.  So, from book five of "The Early Sessions," in view of the season, I present the following:

There were a few remarks that I intended to make concerning the Christmas season, and perhaps I shall make them now. 

If it seems to you that there is a great gap existing within Christianity, between ideals expressed, and actions, then let me tell you that conditions would indeed be far worse if these ideals had not initially been expressed, and if they were not yearly reaffirmed.

As you both suppose, enough constructive psychic energy is generated during the holiday season to recharge psychic batteries, so to speak, for quite some time. Were it not for this your whole race would be in much more serious a predicament. 

One of the reasons, Joseph, for your own lack of festive spirit in the past has been the result of your realization that this gap between idealism and action is great. You could not therefore enter into what you felt to be the hypocrisy of the season. All the more since you have no particular conviction, anymore than Ruburt has, concerning the historic existence of a Christ.

To some extent I have explored some of this, but it will do you well to join wholeheartedly into the very necessary spirit of the time, for it is constructive and most beneficial. And in so doing you help yourself and others.
------
This feeling that Christmas represented hypocrisy has been one of the main reasons for your own low spirits during the season, for it represented a rather deep disillusionment with the culture in which you were nurtured.

(Jane’s eyes now opened, and for the rest of the delivery they opened and shut often.)

The legend of Christ is of great psychic import however, and is intrinsically true. This does not mean it is based in historical fact. In many ways it is more true than historic fact, for man himself created that which had not been provided. The creation nevertheless happened in quite real terms, and is part of mankind’s inner recognition of the pyramid gestalts of which I have spoken. 

This was as close as man could come in his imagination to that which is, and this is all right. The basic idea behind Christmas is definitely important, whether or not the intellect is able to see its significance.

As an coda: As probably everyone knows by now, Art Bell has returned to... the airwaves?  Or to the Internet waves?  In any case, it's been ten years since he has had any significant public presence.  I'm just now catching up with his "inaugural show" with Graham Hancock. While I think that some of Graham Hancock's ideas are interesting, I've never been able to completely listen to any of his interviews--because he always sidetracks himself into a general rant about world conditions. That's where he's at now at my current listen. So I may not finish it. No offense, and no reflection. (It's the seductively listenable guests that I distrust; they're the sociopaths.) But if you have a yen to listen to paranormal radio, listen to Art Bell, not to that other guy.

Two recent scientific examinations of the OOBE

I thought these might be of interest to the metaphysical community. The first examines the common experience of sleep paralysis and how it might relate to the perception of "alien abductions."

The author does not seem to recognize the OOBE as a valid non-physical experience; "sleep paralysis" is as far as science will go in describing that liminal state between sleep and wakefulness where the experiencer is fully conscious, yet unable to activate his physical body:

In the phenomenon of sleep paralysis, a delay occurs between the return of awareness and the activation of muscle control. Sleep paralysis renders a person awake and aware of her surroundings, but completely paralyzed for seconds to several minutes, though episodes lasting over an hour have been reported. Visual and auditory hallucinations often accompany the paralysis. People hear strange sounds, see ghastly figures, and can feel the presence of foreign beings in their midst.

There's lots (there are lots?) that I'd like to say about this, particularly in the parallels between "alien abductions" and "forced" OOBEs, which I've experienced, but I'll have to do it when I've wrapped my mind (brain?) around it better. The OOBEs that I've had and recorded are sufficient to prove that the experience is "real" on an objective, non-physical level, for me... And I've had some UFO experiences in my past. But I don't think that I've experienced enough to argue that "abductions" are just OOBEs.  Still, I believe that they probably are, just not your vanilla OOBE--but rather OOBEs involving multiple entities.

The second article explores the possible neurological basis for the OOBE itself.

I thought that the BBC article was fascinating on several levels, primarily because it accepts the OOBE at face value; it doesn't try to devalue or disqualify the experience or dismiss it as a hallucination. (It does insist, however, that there's a neurological basis for the experience.) I think that science is having to do this due to the sheer onslaught of NDE accounts where the core feature involves the experiencer looking down on his/her body.  The researchers have identified what I think is the central question of the whole experience: what, or who, is one's self-conscious identity?  Is our consciousness merely a product of our neurological activity, focussed exclusively in, and identified totally with, the physical body?  Or can it, and does it, stand apart?

Science argues the former, for good scientific reasons. For me to argue, "Consciousness does not depend on the brain; it is centered elsewhere," then I must be able to prove where, and what, that elsewhere is. ("God" and "spirit world" won't wash with the science crowd.) I can't.  The available scientific evidence certainly suggests that consciousness (and self-awareness) originates in the brain.

And yet...

If consciousness were strictly a byproduct of biological activity, then the classic near-death experience would not exist--at least not to the extent that it apparently does.  They can't *all* involve injuries to the "left posterior insula and adjacent cortical areas."

NDEs were largely unknown until the significant advances in emergency resuscitative medical care in recent decades.  The phenomenon has now entered the collective consciousness; it essentially did not exist prior to the 1970s.  As first-person NDE accounts continue to accumulate, I predict that the materialistic model of consciousness will become increasingly untenable.

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? The case for and against Michael D. Newton

Recently I stumbled upon a critical one-star review of Michael Newton's books at Amazon.com, which referenced a fairly detailed analysis/rebuttal of one of Newton's case studies. After sorting out the various criticisms, one overarching issue remained:  Who, in fact, is Michael D. Newton, PhD?  Is he a "real" doctor?  What are his qualifications?  Where did he obtain his degree?  Michael Newton is the well-known author of two major studies of hypnotically retrieved past-life accounts, "Journey Of Souls" and "Destiny Of Souls."

As I've written before, I think it's important that writers accurately represent their credentials, particularly if they expect to be taken seriously... We have enough laughing stocks in this field already.

So I've been on a quest. I found a forum or two where this very issue was raised--no one can find any proof that Dr. Newton obtained a "real" (i.e., from an accredited university, ideally not one of those for-profit outfits) Doctor of Philosophy degree--which is not the same thing as a medical degree.  I'll settle for PhD--that's hard enough to get.  I scoured all the available sources online and came up empty also.  But I did not find evidence of fabrication--only lack of documentation online.

Per Georgina Cannon, past life researcher, Michael Newton was a practicing "counselling psychologist/hypnotherapist" in the 1960s, continuing to work through the '80s and '90s in California, I think. He retired from active practice over ten years ago. The foreword to one of his later books, "Life Between Lives" (a discussion of his hypnotherapy practice) was written by Arthur E. Roffey, who *does* seem to be a real doctor (MD at that) who is currently certified and practicing.

Those who expect Google to pull up the full academic credentials of someone who retired from active practice in the last century are displaying a shallow understanding of the meaning of "online," I think. The Internet is probably the worst source for anything authoritative, detailed, and accurate about things that really matter (this humble blog included). The 'Net just doesn't work that way--it gives out only what has been put into it. You have to go to primary sources--real books in real libraries.

Now, the fact that we don't know where he graduated *suggests* that he might have gotten a phony degree from a diploma mill. But "real" doctors seem to vouch for his work, so I don't know.

My suspicion is that his PhD may be in a subject other than psychology. Anyone remember Dr. Ruth (Westheimer)?  Her doctorate is actually an Ed.D. degree in education, not psychology. The requirements for becoming a "master hypnotherapist" may simply be taking a few courses and paying a fee. When someone represents himself as a PhD who is a "master hypnotherapist," we assume that he is a psychologist, but he may actually be a Medieval Lit expert fluent in Anglo Saxon. (Which would be fairly cool, in and of itself, not to mention a good person to have over for a beer.)

The new/old secularism confronts the existential unknown, and a Seth quote

I've come across another article that seeks to address the religious component of the "I visited Heaven and returned" genre of books. Essentially, this currently fashionable approach conflates traditional religious dogma with the "visiting heaven" movement... Because some NDE books have a decidedly Christian spin, the whole genre is tainted. The author concludes:

Reading these books catapulted me back into my evangelical past life, reminding me of who I might be still, had I not sought relief from the dissonance of biblical literalism. For me, the genre’s popularity was not a sign of resurgent faith, but symptomatic of faith’s waning – a last gasp at belief, a signal of a coming break.

I'm not sure that I can add anything to this debate that others haven't said better, except:  At different times in my life, I have both a committed secular, agnostic humanist, and a devout Christian fundamentalist. I have lived in both worlds.  Both times, I was convinced that I was completely right, and that the "other side" was sadly misinformed.  And I had an arsenal of facts and rhetorical tools to fling at the other side. Both sides have a fair number of ideological refugees from the other. What I see now, however, when I read the arguments of either, is the smug self-assurance of the one, and the devout moral superiority of the other.  I don't see anything that resonates as truth to me.

Maybe the transcendent nature of the NDE can't be understood with any of our current intellectual tools.  As with other facets of this multidimensional phenomenon, we will have to grow some new tools, or evolve a bit further, before we can assimilate it into our world view. We simply lack the experiential vocabulary now.

Somewhat along the same line, I ran across this Seth quote that fleshes out (somewhat) that enigmatic discussion in "Seth Speaks" involving the return of the "Christ personality" later in this century. Presumably, this return will come at a pivotal time in human history when, after some unspecified crises, humanity experiences a "shift" in consciousness.  The idea of this shift appears in a number of books and has been appropriated by the New Age movement. The more apocalyptic students of this New Age have made a number of predictions, describing, variously, end-world scenarios, axis shifts, and land mass changes. And all have been wrong. From Book Five of "The Early Sessions":

There will be a change in 100 years... when you will be able to see more... You will see through a growth of ability and consciousness... an enlargement... that has been growing for 500 years... the change began in the Middle Ages, existed briefly, died, then began again... It will involve an expansion of consciousness, not physical knowledge... You will directly and simply perceive more... I cannot make Ruburt find all the words. Your God is part of a larger reality. We see what we can see... This larger reality is also a part of our dreams: it is more important and vital than breath, for you are all part of this individually. There is a give and take between you and the stars on a physical basis, just as there is also a connection between selves and what you call a god. There is no real division between you and God and I... only a unity that you cannot as yet understand.

I'm stumped by Seth's allusion to the change that "began in the Middle Ages, existed briefly, died, then began again..."  Maybe a Medieval scholar (who's hopefully also a Seth student) will stumble across this and offer a clue. But I'm stumped, mostly because it's counter-intuitive:  Humanity *did* have a shift of consciousness at the end of the Middle Ages (triggered by the mass die-offs from the Black Death), but this shift resulted in the current dominant secular materialist world view (the Age of Reason). Seth seems to suggest that in the latter half of this century, another shift will occur, and it's not unreasonable to assume that it will also correspondent to a mass extinction of some sort (or sudden population reduction). Unfortunately, because we're not there yet, we can't know what this shift entails.

Perhaps it is an awareness of this coming shift that is inflaming both the secularists and the religionists. Both sides fear the triumph of the other; secularists fear that the hard-won achievements of science will backslide into superstition, and the religionists fear that materialism will eradicate any trace of that inner reality that still speaks to those who listen. But I think that Seth is saying that neither doomsday will occur. What is coming is a synthesis of the best of both, yet completely new, and, for now, unknown, and unknowable.

A Seth Pilgrim's Progress

I'm still continuing my progress through Book 4 of "The Early Session" and I've run into something interesting:

You recall that all experience has an electrical reality, deposited from birth within the physical cells of the body, so that at physical death we have an electrical counterpart of the physical being with all memory and experience intact. Were such experience a part of the physical self, and dependent upon it, the personality could hardly survive physical death.

It's interesting to me because it suggests the basis by which we survive physical death. What is universally called "spirit" or "soul" within the NDE literature, Seth calls "electrical counterpart."  I prefer Seth's term because I can somewhat wrap my mind around it--just barely. But it does explain how consciousness quickly exits the body during the NDE and while remaining "conscious"--and it also explains something that I personally find remarkable, which I have experienced--while out-of-body, I am still "me" and aware that I am "me."  One of the more frequent observations by near-death experiencers is that personal memories are retained during

Seth goes into extensive discussion of the "electrical counterpart" (and the electrical world where this counterpart resides) in Book 3 of the "Early Sessions."  The discussion is quite complex and largely above my head.  Seth emphasizes that the familiar electrical traces the we detect with our physical instruments are faint shadows of this electrical universe.

So I wonder... Is this why street lamps blink off when certain people drive near them? (It happens to me quite often.)  Is this why the "dead" can easily manipulate our electrical devices?  Can this explain why I was never able to wear a mechanical watch when I was young without it becoming magnetized?  (I can wear them fine now--not sure what this says about me.)

Seth on UFO "Disclosure"

From an informal session on September 3, 1965, summarized by Robert Butts (Book 4 of "The Early Sessions"):

(Seth had some very interesting comments to make when the conversation turned to flying saucers, and the recent rash of reports on such craft in the newspapers. The craft do exist, Seth said, and the action of governments in relation to them leaves much to be desired. I believe he used the word "pitiable" in this connection. Also, government people cannot bear to admit something they cannot explain. Seth said that nevertheless the government had a point when they tried to prevent public panic by denying the existence of such craft. A great danger at this particular time would be that an admission of the saucer’s existence would, strangely enough, serve to unite the far- left and far- right extremist groups in this country. These groups would unite in declaring the craft to be Russian, that they were much advanced over anything we have; this whole furor would create panic, Seth said. In six months such reasoning would not apply, because of impending developments in this country. This would presumably be because of the impending elections, though Seth didn’t say this in so many words. In answer to my question he said Barry Goldwater would not be one of the far- rightists to cause trouble. Nothing was said about the source of the saucers, their inhabitants, etc.)

Seth made several side references to UFOs in the various sessions, but never focussed on the subject in detail... I don't think that he saw the subject as vital. Overall, Seth stated that UFOs originate from different planes--some physical, some "mental."  There was no one specific locus of origin for the craft. Those familiar with Seth's discussions of "planes" know that a plane is not geographically related to any place in our physical universe; hence, there is no specific "where" that these craft might come from, at least in physical terms that we understand.

I can't find anything in the Seth writings to validate the more conspiratorial ideas of mass abductions or sinister hybridization projects... No warnings of impending alien takeovers--or rescues.

So, why did Seth not delve into the subject in detail?  We can only guess. But I suspect that any explanation that Seth might have given would have been lost on his contemporary audience, which saw the phenomenon in physical terms. They lacked the necessary mental vocabulary and reference points to properly frame the subject--and probably still do. Or, as Betty Hill's alien abductors reportedly her when she asked where, on their three-dimensional star map, their craft originated, "If you can't tell us where *you* are on the map, what good would it do to say where *we* come from?"