Condescending Ideas About Imagination

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Condescending Ideas About Imagination

Post #1

Post by William »

Often in argument, the imagination is derided as somehow irrelevant and suspect for that. This happens in relation to alternate experiences individuals have where the arguments against these being real - and thus 'of the imagination' are expressed - often in derogatory fashion and used in that way to procure a kind of legitimacy which itself might be construed in that fashion for the sake of giving the impression that one 'wins' the argument by adopting such method.

Q: Is the method of argument really legitimate?

My thoughts on imagination is that without this vital element of the human experience, nothing humans have created could have been created. So rather than demoting human imagination in derogatory terms, one should acknowledge that vital part it plays in the ongoing injection of invention into the external world we like to refer to as 'reality'.

Also, it has been argued that NDEs and OOBEs etc are 'products of imagination' but is this a fair comparison to make? I was recently informed by another that they believed that they had experience genuine NDEs and OOBEs and could not decide whether the experiences were real or imagined, but settled for the conclusion that these were most likely imagined - as in - the experiences were products of their imagination and nothing more.

I have not (as yet) experienced an NDE so have only anecdotal accounts to go on, but I have had a few OOBEs and can definitely say in that, that the experiences are different from what the experience of imagination gives to me.

Indeed, we understand imagination to 'not being real' because we understand the difference between what we refer to as 'real' and what we refer to as 'imagined' - it is the very difference which allows us to delineate between the states of experience.

In relation to human creativity, we understand that the process always begins within the imagination of the individual and the individual is then required to understand the possibility of making the imagined REAL by using 'the stuff of this reality' to try and make what is imagined, REAL.

Without the internal imagination, this process cannot become externalized. Without imagination the human race could not have become what it presently has become or what it potentially can become in the future.

Indeed, potential is another aspect of imagination. Without imagination, potential would never be recognized, let alone actualized.

Currently there is a focus on the argument that GOD is 'an imaginary being in the sky' which is not a new criticism by any means. But what is that really saying in terms of how the word 'imagination' is used for derogatory purposes by those arguing from such a position?

My own ideas on GOD are well enough presented on this board, and have yet to be seriously contested, but have often enough simply been hand-waved away in derogatory fashion as 'imagination', as if in doing so - those practicing such method of argument - are somehow making a relevant point which settles the issue 'once and for all' - at least, according to them. From my perspective though, such hand-waving does nothing at all in any way to convince me I am mistaken, or that my experiences are nothing more than 'imagination'.

Q: Are those in favor of arguing in that manner, truly satisfied that such is 'the end of the matter' and there is no need for them to ponder any alternatives as they settle for the dogmatism of naturalism being the most likely 'answer' in relation to all mystery and alternate experience, content in their belief that their living is simply an invention of the brain and that dying will end their experience forever?

Even so, is that the best position to adopt, given no one actually really knows for sure? Or is the position that one simply maintains through willful choice because any other alternative allows for possibilities which could act against the protective mechanism which a condescending position enforces, effectively ensuring the individual is not tempted to believe anything which cannot be experienced as reality, and that all reality must be able be verified through scientific process, in order to be called 'real'?

Or are there other explanations which I haven't considered, because they have yet to be postulated?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Condescending Ideas About Imagination

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: In relation to human creativity, we understand that the process always begins within the imagination of the individual and the individual is then required to understand the possibility of making the imagined REAL by using 'the stuff of this reality' to try and make what is imagined, REAL.

Without the internal imagination, this process cannot become externalized. Without imagination the human race could not have become what it presently has become or what it potentially can become in the future.
It seems to me the part of all this is that you are missing is the difference between what can be imagined, and what can be made real.

There is no question that some of the things we imagine we can also make real because we have imagined things that are compatible with what reality can do. However, there are also cases where we imagine things that clearly cannot be made real and have no counterpart in reality.

So it's not imagination in general that is being argued against. What is being argued against is when people start claiming that things they imagine that cannot take place in reality are "real".

In other words, this is when a person begins to fail to be able to distinguish between what is real and what they can imagine.

I can imagine a lot of things that are not compatible with reality.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Condescending Ideas About Imagination

Post #3

Post by William »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I am not sure that what you posted as reply DI, ties in with the overall OP blurb. Can you link what you have written, to the OPQ's (as you don't seem to be offering answers) and also give some examples of what you are speaking to.

Thanks.
Last edited by William on Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

I don't see where it's condescending to dismiss claims that imagination, or a purely mental experience, is somehow evidence of real events.

Claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's really that simple.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by William »

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]
It's really that simple.
Is that your answer to both questions then?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]
It's really that simple.
Is that your answer to both questions then?
Well, if you want to talk about NDE's and OOBE's, the problem is that different people have such uniquely personal experiences that the evidence of their very own reports indicates that what they are experiencing is their own thoughts.

It would be different if everyone who claimed to have these experiences would report the same thing, but they don't. In fact, what they report is almost always tied directly to what they already know.

So there is no compelling evidence for these things.

My question to you is why anyone should feel that this observation is "condescending"?

Psychologists tell us that our own brain is best at fooling itself. Should we feel that this result is "condescending" too?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #7

Post by William »

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]
Well, if you want to talk about NDE's and OOBE's, the problem is that different people have such uniquely personal experiences that the evidence of their very own reports indicates that what they are experiencing is their own thoughts.
Thoughts do indeed interact with the experiences as a matter of par for the course with anything involved with consciousness/conscious experience.

Indeed, many report that communication with entities they encounter are accomplished mind to mind.

Most would agree also that what they experience is beyond anything they have imagined let alone formed thoughts about. Certainly my own experiences agree with this. Even the entity I encountered was not something I had though about or imagined - or could have imagined, even if I had wanted to.
It would be different if everyone who claimed to have these experiences would report the same thing, but they don't. In fact, what they report is almost always tied directly to what they already know.
Taken at face value, this is definitely not true. Certainly each experience is unique, but just as certainly there are similar factors. Certainly those who have such experience learn things they previously never knew or even contemplated. Post #20 (in the "Near Death Experiences of Christians and others" thread) details this from the accompanying video on the studies of NDEs. Well worth the watch when you get some time.
My question to you is why anyone should feel that this observation is "condescending"?
The answer to that is in the OP DI. Have you never seen an atheist use the expression in a derogatory manner?
Psychologists tell us that our own brain is best at fooling itself. Should we feel that this result is "condescending" too?
Generally psychologists avoid condescending as part of their practice. If they did not, they would soon run out of customers. Notice the OP is not making commentary on how psychologists use condescension in relation to imagination? Certainly they do not tell their clients, "Its all in your imagination - nothing more."

In that field, it is not a case of atheists against theists. Certainly the studies done on NDEs note the people who report having had them tend towards a brighter outlook on life and do not feel the need to seek out psychologists anyway. An atheist claiming it was all in their imagination would do nothing in the way of convincing them that was the actual truth of the matter.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #8

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: Indeed, many report that communication with entities they encounter are accomplished mind to mind.
The problem with this is that no one has ever reported any communication that has revealed knowledge that they couldn't have otherwise known. There's just never been a compelling case. In fact, the vast majority of communication that people report is almost exclusively associated with their own personal problems and concerns. Precisely what we should expect from a secular psychological experience.
William wrote: Most would agree also that what they experience is beyond anything they have imagined let alone formed thoughts about. Certainly my own experiences agree with this. Even the entity I encountered was not something I had though about or imagined - or could have imagined, even if I had wanted to.
I too have had dreams, visions, and mental experiences where I have encountered entities that I had never imagined prior to those experiences. I see no reason to think that just because something is new that I should assign anything special to it. I actually experience new things in my imagination all the time. So this isn't surprising to me.
William wrote: Taken at face value, this is definitely not true. Certainly each experience is unique, but just as certainly there are similar factors. Certainly those who have such experience learn things they previously never knew or even contemplated. Post #20 (in the "Near Death Experiences of Christians and others" thread) details this from the accompanying video on the studies of NDEs. Well worth the watch when you get some time.
It's well-known that not everyone has the same level of imagination. In fact, some people seem to have great difficulty in trying to imagine anything new. Whilst others have no problem with this at all. In the case of people who are extremely moved by the so-called NDEs and OOBEs it's very likely that they simply aren't used to having wildly imaginative experiences, so when they do, they see this as something quite profound. This is why different people react to the same experiences quite differently.

All human brains are not wired in the same way.
William wrote: The answer to that is in the OP DI. Have you never seen an atheist use the expression in a derogatory manner?
Well sure. Anyone can be derogatory anytime they want. But this doesn't make an entire subject derogatory. Of course, there are going to be people who attempt to "belittle" or make fun of someone who is deeply moved by a mental experience. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. All I'm saying is that when people start claiming that because they had what they consider to be a profound mental experience everyone else should accept this as "evidence" that their experience represents some sort of reality beyond the reality of having imagined the experience.

There's just no compelling evidence that these mental experiences represent anything more than what they are.
William wrote: Generally psychologists avoid condescending as part of their practice.
I agree. I also don't recall condoning being condescending toward anyone.

I can appreciate that someone's mental experiences are profound for them. I wouldn't even try to claim otherwise. Where the problem comes in is when they start demanding that their mental experiences should be accepted as evidence that these mental experiences reflect the true nature of reality.

I practice various spiritual rituals where I imagine many spiritual creatures. And many of these creatures have come into my imagination totally unplanned by me. In other words, just as you have previously suggested, during these mental journeys I meet entities that I would have never purposefully thought up.

In fact, I'm very much into "Shamanic Journeying". And it's precisely because these things take on a life of their own beyond what I had ever thought about planning. So I'm well aware of how "real" the imagination can seem, even when you set out to have these experience in a methodical way.

None the less, I would never claim that any of these experiences represent anything more than a construction of my own brain. And I have had people make "condescending" remarks simply because I practice Shaman Journeying and the Casting of Circles (which I consider to be just another form of Shamanic Journeying.

These worlds are "real" to me. Because these are real experiences for me. But I'm not going to start telling other people that this represent anything more than construction of my own brain. In fact, as far as I can know they aren't anything more than this. In fact, I have never been able to extract any compelling information form any creature I have ever met in my Shamanic Journeys. I have come back from these journeys with new artistic ideas, but whose to say that I couldn't have come up with those on my own? I certainly never came back with tomorrow's lottery number.
William wrote: Notice the OP is not making commentary on how psychologists use condescension in relation to imagination? Certainly they do not tell their clients, "Its all in your imagination - nothing more."
For psychologists there's a LOT more to it. What we imagine in our minds often reflects much about our deepest desires, fears, and other issues that are deeply important to us.

A psychologist would most likely be very interested in hearing the content of my Shamanic Journeys was that content would tell them a lot about me. What I desire, what I fear, what I feel empowered about, what I feel helpless to control, etc.

So yes, a psychologist is not going to downplay our imagination. They would like to know ever dream and thought we have. :-k

So saying that "It's just your imagination - nothing more." Is not appropriate at all. Although they might say this to someone is constantly imagining horrible things happening to them. In this case, they are apparently so worried about something bad happening to them that they have fallen into a rut where they can't even stop imagining bad things happening to them.

In this case they need to know that this is "just their imagination" and they need to stop it. And start taking some control over what they imagine. They need to actually start training their brain to start thinking more positively and optimistically.

We actually can reprogram the wiring of our own brains if we take the initiative to this.
William wrote: In that field, it is not a case of atheists against theists. Certainly the studies done on NDEs note the people who report having had them tend towards a brighter outlook on life and do not feel the need to seek out psychologists anyway. An atheist claiming it was all in their imagination would do nothing in the way of convincing them that was the actual truth of the matter.
I have actually studied many NDE's myself. I'm not a qualified psychologist. None the less what I see in these experiences are people who simply can't deal with death, and especially with the death of a loved one. The NDE experience they had basically was their own brain reassuring them of the things they want to be reassured about.

Like you say, most people who have these come out of them feeling very good about life because they have just had their own worst fears lifted from them. You had posted a video of a man who had an NDE, and a large part of what he had experienced was his wife condoning everything he's done and assuring him that he was not to blame.

She died in an accident that he felt was his fault. So in his NDE his wife assured him that it wasn't his fault and that she was ok with it. So this is his brain's way of relieving him of what would otherwise be an ongoing guilt trip that he couldn't live with.

In fact, the same man in the same video said he later met another women and wanted to remarry, so he went back to the grave of his dead wife and ask for her permission. And of course, his dead wife told him that would be WONDERFUL and she wished him the best life ever!

Well, gee. I think a psychologist can easily see what's going on here. This man needs his previous wife to approve of everything he does so that he can free himself of guilt that he would otherwise feel.

Like you say, People who have these experiences tend to feel BETTER about life rather than worse. So they aren't going to imagine their loved ones going to hell, or disapproving of them, or telling them that they need to become celibate for their rest of their life, etc.

People imagine what they want to hear. Not what they don't want to hear.

Now you may want to change your tune here and say that there are people who have had horrifying NDEs. But then again, those people may simply be people who have had major guilt over things and when they thought they were going to die they did imagine being cast into hell or whatever. They probably now figure they are being given a "second chance" to get it right.

We can always make excuses for why we had the experiences we had.

So NDEs are most likely the thoughts of the individual. Either consisting of what they want to hear, or consisting of their greatest fears.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #9

Post by William »

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]
The problem with this is that no one has ever reported any communication that has revealed knowledge that they couldn't have otherwise known.
There have been cases mentioned in studies where this does seem to have occurred. What comes to mind are siblings who NDE and meet another entity claiming to be a sibling. The NDEr reports this to a parent, who then is informed that they did have an older sibling who had passed on, which they had no been told about.

Generally though, the experiences are not about getting information which might convince anyone else of the validity of the experience or existence of the alternate reality. Any 'problem' with this, is entirely the perception of those who want evidence or assume there should be far more information which can convince those who have had no such experiences.
I too have had dreams, visions, and mental experiences where I have encountered entities that I had never imagined prior to those experiences.
No one who has had such experience would be surprised by that.
I see no reason to think that just because something is new that I should assign anything special to it.
Well it is a part of the natural experience of being human, if not for everyone. Even so, assigning 'special' to it is natural enough and up to the individual.

I see no reason to think that just because this is your personal decision, that others should follow suit.

Indeed, perhaps there wasn't anything significant about your particular experiences and thus no prompt to think of it as special? Perhaps the entities themselves understand this about your personality and leave it at that.

There are accounts from those who Astral travel, of individuals who have passed on and who remain in a state of belief that they are still alive on earth as a human and that they are simply experiencing some kind of hallucination brought on through their imagination. Often such places are described as 'hospitals' by the travelers observing this. Eventually the 'patients' come to accept that they have moved on from their human experience as a being on a planet and accept their new dominant reality.
I actually experience new things in my imagination all the time. So this isn't surprising to me.
Well we all do DI. Such things are ordinary. The surprising stuff is extraordinary.
Perhaps you are conflating the experience of things imagined with the experience of things real?

The OP acknowledges the importance of the imagination as a device of consciousness, as is thought.
The OP itself was instigated through another post I made (post#54 in "The Mud-Man & His Rib-Woman " thread), where I wrote;
This leads me to point again to the intelligence behind the process. Mindless random mutation would not 'settle' for a tried and true methodology in order for procreation to take place. A mindless thing simply cannot 'settle' for anything.

Which is why, when I see a picture of the Earth taken by an astronaut from the USofA I see the form of a living, breathing, thinking, self aware super-intelligence, which without, no astronaut would have ever gotten to the moon.

There is the evidence for a GOD.

As well as this concept being reasonable, one can also think about the fact that this GOD is in 'the sky' and the human mind can boggle at the mystery as to what it would be like to actually BE the Earth, how one would go about trying to connect intelligently with the conscious lifeforms one has 'breathed' oneself into, how long the planet and the creative process of biological evolution has been happening all over that place, and perhaps even relax a little knowing that everything is as it should be, as it changes day to day.

So yes, I do see hints of truth in the stories of the ancients. I also understand that it is pointless taking them too literally, and assume that in 6000 years from now, human beings will take us - their own 'ancients' - with a grain of salt...as in not too seriously but perhaps with some gratitude, and not feel too dismayed or condescending as to our present behavior.

It is all we could ask - that they understand our ignorance as being rather normal for the time and the place.

Lets face it, even as humans traveled to the moon and looked back at the earth from the craft of their technology, - created through projects named after gods - they still quoted the Genesis story of Creation.
What I was alluding to in that post was that we get our inspiration through the device of imagination. There is no reason to think that this cannot come from common source outside individual brains.

That local source is which I refer to as 'The Earth Entity' and that inspiration compels us forward and gifts us with ways and means in which to accomplish what started out as what we think of as "in the imagination"...and we have the means in which to make it real...altogether we are the outward expression of The Earth Entity, and in this reality, are no more separate from her than we are from one another.
It's well-known that not everyone has the same level of imagination. In fact, some people seem to have great difficulty in trying to imagine anything new. Whilst others have no problem with this at all. In the case of people who are extremely moved by the so-called NDEs and OOBEs it's very likely that they simply aren't used to having wildly imaginative experiences, so when they do, they see this as something quite profound. This is why different people react to the same experiences quite differently.

All human brains are not wired in the same way.
Keeping things in perspective is indeed a good practice. You give no specific examples as to what you are referring to in which the reader can reference off, so there is little to be seen in whatever it is you are trying to argue in the above.

What I can gather though, is that you appear to want to continue to argue that these experiences are "of the imagination" and that the imagination is somehow only for dealing with things which are not actually real.

I get that in your use of the phrase "wildly imaginative experiences" and suppose this is because these are what you are referring to in relation to your own experiences, which - perhaps - you are saying are "wildly imaginative experiences you have which are not actually real but your brain is wired to have them and you have them enough to understand that they are 'not real'"

While, of course, you are free to continue your life's experience believing such about yourself - and even projecting that on all others, without any detailed information from you regarding your experiences - which we at least get from those who are willing to share theirs - we have nothing to compare which might help your case/argument here.
Well sure. Anyone can be derogatory anytime they want. But this doesn't make an entire subject derogatory. Of course, there are going to be people who attempt to "belittle" or make fun of someone who is deeply moved by a mental experience. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. All I'm saying is that when people start claiming that because they had what they consider to be a profound mental experience everyone else should accept this as "evidence" that their experience represents some sort of reality beyond the reality of having imagined the experience.

There's just no compelling evidence that these mental experiences represent anything more than what they are.
I see what you did there DI - subtle. :) What you state above is that these experiences are nothing but "the imagination" and are thus NOT REAL. Certainly the majority of people who have them don't consider them to be "nothing but the imagination ", or refer to the experiences as 'mental' because this implies 'the brain did it' - which of course is the platform you are arguing from, but claiming that such experiences are 'of the brain' is no different than claiming they are 'spiritual experience independent of the brain.' as it is really a matter of interpretation and what you are speaking of as "mental experiences" might well be different from what people are speaking about as NDEs/OOBEs.

Keep that in mind. :)

NDEs typically do not involve the individual taking a good look around the environment of the AR. They are usually focused on the experience of meeting an entity, of having heighten yet well enough controlled emotional awareness, some kind of 'place' often difficult to describe, and are told they must return to their human experience. Some experiences involve 'heaven's or hell's'.

OOBEs differ in that these are purposeful and do not involve the body having to be near death. One can study the many different writings individuals share to understand the nature of the AR and understand it overall as a 'place' so 'maps' can be made in relation to this.

The main example is the 'maps' that have been made regarding the nature of the Astral Realm show clearly that Christianity - and that which Christianity got its ideas from - developed these religious theologies through the interaction of individuals experiencing the AR, and those 'maps' include what is oft referred to as different levels or 'vibrations' of reality within the whole structure, and these do include 'heaven's and hell's' among other places and there is a type of 'like attracts like' involved in individual placement of personalities who have experienced life on earth and passed on to this next phase.

I have a friend who is a materialist and believes as you do, that when her body dies, that is the end of her because she is a product of the brain and nothing more. She too claims to have had alternate experiences (although has never shared with me what they consisted of) and I asked her recently, how she would react if - upon dying - she found herself still existing and that the alternate experiences she had had prior to her body dying turned out to be real.

She told me she would think about that and get back to me. i look forward to her answer.

Psychologists
Generally psychologists avoid condescending as part of their practice.
I agree. I also don't recall condoning being condescending toward anyone.
I also don't recall anyone saying you had.
I can appreciate that someone's mental experiences are profound for them. I wouldn't even try to claim otherwise. Where the problem comes in is when they start demanding that their mental experiences should be accepted as evidence that these mental experiences reflect the true nature of reality.
What is a 'True Scotsman' DI? Is there any such thing?

The true nature of reality is still a mystery. I am surprised that you appear to be claiming otherwise.

I see that you also are persisting with your definition of NDEs/OOBEs as "mental experiences". I myself will continue to remain open as to what they are and where they are sourced.

Generally when psychologists are involved, it is because the individual is troubled by mental experiences. It is not usually a case of them demanding anything from the psychologists other than the mental experiences were/are real as far as they are concerned, and the psychologists do not deny that this is an aspect of the general nature of reality. It truly happens to people. Psychologists acknowledge that.

As to THIS reality, someone claims to 'hear a disturbing voice in the air', the psychologist does not hear anything at all, it is therefore not a reflection of the true nature of objective reality as far as the psychologist is concerned.

This, of course, is not what I am arguing.

I am speaking specifically to NDEs and OOBEs. As already stated, the individual experiencing such, generally react favorably and in most instances the experiences are life-changing in positive ways and therefore there is no reason to seek anything from psychologists.
I practice various spiritual rituals where I imagine many spiritual creatures.
This means nothing to the reader. It lacks any point of reference as to what the writer means.
And many of these creatures have come into my imagination totally unplanned by me.
You appear to be conflating imagination with the mind in general, rather than as an aspect of the mind.
Also, it is unclear to this reader what you mean by 'into your imagination' and whether what you are speaking to is even the same experience NDEs/OOBEs are speaking to.
Obviously you think it is, but there is no detailed information from you to compare that with.
In other words, just as you have previously suggested, during these mental journeys I meet entities that I would have never purposefully thought up.

This is somewhat better, but still lacks any specific details which can be aligned with the details shared by those who experience NDEs/OOBEs and the entities they encounter. Your experiences might not be replication.

Should the reader assume that when you say 'mental journeys' you are comparing these to NDEs, and that you believe that everything you believe you are experiencing is not real?

Bearing in mind DI, that encounters with beings always offer the individual experiencing these, insights into things they previously were ignorant of, and in that, the insight is life changing and significant to the individual. Such as is the case, the real experience has real consequence in relation to how the individual develops within the structure of their human experience in the equally real physical universe, which also incidentally is experienced with 'the mind'.

One can imagine going uptown to meet with friends or one can actually do so. You appear to be arguing one is the same as the other.
In fact, I'm very much into "Shamanic Journeying". And it's precisely because these things take on a life of their own beyond what I had ever thought about planning. So I'm well aware of how "real" the imagination can seem, even when you set out to have these experience in a methodical way.
With "Shamanic Journeying", while it is true that all encounters are not necessarily trustworthy, you are the first "shaman" I have encountered who states that all his experiences are not "real" but 'only imagined'. The general consensus is that the practice is the use of a bridge between two types of realities. This one and the Astral Realm. From the perspective of the AR, the physical universe is 'less real' (rather than not real) because of its less permanent nature in relation to individuate experience.
None the less, I would never claim that any of these experiences represent anything more than a construction of my own brain.
While that is obvious DI, it is not a significant argument in itself. It delegates the brain as a powerful creative god-like entity for one thing, but also ignores other relevant observations.
Certainly the arguments main use is that it allows one to remain fixated in the belief that the material world is the only 'real' thing that can actually be experienced as 'real' in relation to the belief that consciousness is emergent of the brain.
Anyone who believes this has no choice but to adopt that, and CLAIM the opposite. Which is to observe that while you 'would never claim that any of these experiences represent anything more than a construction of your own brain.' you are making the claim that the brain is the sole source of and the thing doing it. Your claim is in the words "anything more than a construction of my own brain".

That, of course, is based solely on a particular interpretation of an observation, and as such is no different than a claim that the experiences are NOT the sole product of the individuals brain. The evidence remains the same, the interpretation of the evidence is the only difference.
And I have had people make "condescending" remarks simply because I practice Shaman Journeying and the Casting of Circles (which I consider to be just another form of Shamanic Journeying.

These worlds are "real" to me. Because these are real experiences for me. But I'm not going to start telling other people that this represent anything more than construction of my own brain.
Wait what? First you tell he reader they are imaginative experiences to you and now you tell the reader they are real experiences. Which is it DI? Real or imagined?

Imagined to be real right? :D
Well of course you are not going to tell anyone any different DI. You already know the grief you have receive from just telling others you practice such things, without adding to that grief. This of course only goes to show WHY you do not wish to make the call the one way, because it is safer to make it the other. This is essentially WHY such things remain occulted. Best to practice your study in secret eh *wink*. And NEVER be contrary to popular beliefs about 'what is real and what is not' because that CAN - indeed - be dangerous.

Anyway, what evidence could you provide the doubter?

You could even be making it all up just for the sake of argument. As a device in which to tell everyone else that they are wrong to believe their experiences are actually REAL and they should adopt the SAME position as you do in the matter.

Even if that was the case that you are using this tactic DI, does not convince those who understand their experiences are as genuine as this physical reality appears to be DI. Such is the life-changing power of these experiences. Not even Christians, using their demonizing tactics, are able to accomplish that.
In fact, as far as I can know they aren't anything more than this. In fact, I have never been able to extract any compelling information form any creature I have ever met in my Shamanic Journeys. I have come back from these journeys with new artistic ideas, but whose to say that I couldn't have come up with those on my own? I certainly never came back with tomorrow's lottery number.
*giggles*.

Not that I would call myself a sharman DI, and indeed, you are the only person I have encountered who has claimed to be one.

Not that I haven't read about sharmaism and such-like practices.

Unlike you/your experiences, and indeed NDErs and their experiences, I have only ever interacted with two entities, in a face to face manner. The very first entity didn't visit to give me lotto numbers, and spoke nary a word, was not invited into my room and thus had intruded - insinuated himself onto my psyche - and left under less than ideal circumstances soon after arriving.

Indeed, while nothing was spoken by him, he may as well have said. "There you go William, DEAL with that!"

Certainly this is precisely what I decided to do.

What I didn't decide to do was to try and forget the incident, or consign it as something that was dreamed up by 'yours truly - the brain'.

I would do it all again in a heartbeat. Only thing which I would do differently, would be to adopt a different attitude, but even so, it happened as it did, and there is no going back to change that.

Point being, I learned a great deal from the encounter which has benefited me as an individual, and thus those closest to me, as par for the course. There would be no point in my delegating the entity to being a construct of my imagination. That is laughable.

My own rituals related to what you call "Shaman Journeying and the Casting of Circles" have been ongoing, and the image you can see that I use for my profile avatar...

Image

...is of one of many message boards I created in order to commune with "spiritual creatures" (as you call them) and other such entities, only - unlike you , I meet them, not in "rituals of imaginative journeys of the brain", but through using a physical device and staying very much IN this physical universe reality while doing so.

Through that, I gained a lot of life-changing perspective, and interesting insight - call it divine if you will - whatever! But no, although I did broach the subject now and again I never actually asked for the winning lotto numbers, or any particular evidence that would convince anyone else about the reality of the spirit dimension/alternate reality/AR. That was besides the point of why I wanted contact anyway.

Through use of such device, yes I did interact with entities of various sort, sometimes during 'dream-time' as real experience, and not one of them every said anything to me. They didn't have to. It was enough that I saw and experienced them as real, not imagined.

Psychologists

For psychologists there's a LOT more to it. What we imagine in our minds often reflects much about our deepest desires, fears, and other issues that are deeply important to us.
Yes. I have told others how use of the message board was like having the best psychologists anyone could ever hope to have, such was the profound reaction this type of interaction had on me. This, as well as my OOBE experiences. There is no doubt my initial OOBE influenced my eventual decision to create and use messages boards. I now knew 'dimensional entities' existed. Could I commune with them in this manner? Lets find out! Yes I could!
A psychologist would most likely be very interested in hearing the content of my Shamanic Journeys was that content would tell them a lot about me. What I desire, what I fear, what I feel empowered about, what I feel helpless to control, etc.
As long as the Shamanic Journeys tell you a lot about yourself and you can accept that, what more evidence could a person want or need? Unless the tool hasn't done the job...
They would like to know ever dream and thought we have.
Just like these entities know everything about me. It is helpful, even to me as they reflect it back. Interaction with them is good self-referencing device indeed.
So saying that "It's just your imagination - nothing more." Is not appropriate at all. Although they might say this to someone is constantly imagining horrible things happening to them. In this case, they are apparently so worried about something bad happening to them that they have fallen into a rut where they can't even stop imagining bad things happening to them.

In this case they need to know that this is "just their imagination" and they need to stop it. And start taking some control over what they imagine. They need to actually start training their brain to start thinking more positively and optimistically.

We actually can reprogram the wiring of our own brains if we take the initiative to this.
I think you might be referring to some ideal psychologist and ideal patient?

There are plenty of horror stories as to how 'too hard' that basket is and the far easier alternative is to administer quite harm inducing drugs in order to do for the patient what the patient is apparently unable to do for themselves, even that you and I might agree that we can indeed reprogram our thinking, and actually influence the way our brains do things, rather than think it is the other way around. :) and that our brains control US.

It just isn't so, as far as I know - even that it might appear to be the case.
I have actually studied many NDE's myself. I'm not a qualified psychologist. None the less what I see in these experiences are people who simply can't deal with death, and especially with the death of a loved one. The NDE experience they had basically was their own brain reassuring them of the things they want to be reassured about.
It might be the case or it might actually BE the case that their loved ones do survive death and the reassurance is supplement or even totally unnecessary, just as fear of death is unnecessary...which incidentally is precisely what most people get from NDEs. A lack of fear of death. So even if they were afraid of death before the experience, afterwards, that fear has gone.
Some may even have decided that it was - as you claim - a fear induced brain illusion but the realness will still prevail in their minds, and death - even as a finality, still loses its 'sting'.
This should not imply though, that those who believe it was real experience, do so because secretly they are 'wanting to live forever'. Some, like myself, think that there is no choice in the matter as we are eternal beings and always have been. Little journeys into experiences such as this physical universe might simply be a way in which to alleviate that continuum through the experience of 'birth/beginning and middle and end/death' just to break things up a bit. :) and maybe even learn something new along the way!
Like you say, most people who have these come out of them feeling very good about life because they have just had their own worst fears lifted from them. You had posted a video of a man who had an NDE, and a large part of what he had experienced was his wife condoning everything he's done and assuring him that he was not to blame.

She died in an accident that he felt was his fault. So in his NDE his wife assured him that it wasn't his fault and that she was ok with it. So this is his brain's way of relieving him of what would otherwise be an ongoing guilt trip that he couldn't live with.
My main problem with that DI is it assumes that the brain therefore has two consciousnesses in operation. I said this in post #70 in the "Near Death Experiences of Christians and others" thread when I wrote this;

I have yet to be shown any information which shows logically, [that] experiences which are claimed to have happened, logically shouldn't happen - [and] shouldn't be able to be experienced.

This is especially true when claiming that the brain is that which is giving the experience. To suggest that it is responsible for the complex unworldly experiences of NDEs/OOBEs, is to have to give the brain two separate consciousnesses, in order for it to achieve this.

1: that which is claimed to be generated by the brain as 'consciousness', which effectively is what 'we' are.

and;

2: A separate consciousness from what 'we' are which develops the elaborate 'hallucinations' which can be experienced by the 'we' consciousness in order to 'trick' us that we are 'real' and the alternate experiences are also 'real'.

As I mentioned in my last post, in order for this to be the case, many things become problematic.

Essentially, there becomes little difference in that argument, than with the argument the Christians use to 'explain' why these experience happen, which is 'deceptive demons are doing it'.
To those who have genuinely experienced alternate reality, both claims fall short of the actual experience had - and frankly - come across as bizarre, desperate and ill-informed.


Your expression "So this is his brain's way of relieving him of what would otherwise be an ongoing guilt trip that he couldn't live with" is -as far as I can tell- no less motivated by your desire to maintain your position, in the same way Christians desire to maintain theirs, when they claim 'the devil is deceiving you into believing you have nothing to worry about', .

The fact of the matter is that this was not the only thing the man - Jeff Olsen - spoke of re the experience of his NDE. It is one thing to claim his brain manufactured the 'unreal' experience to essentially protect itself by having its creation (Jeff) placated from otherwise spinning out and ruining everything due to his carelessness at falling asleep at the wheel and killing half his family and any guilt he might have about that.

I am being told by you to believe 'the brain' can - of its own volition - produces these incredible 'fake' visions in order to alleviate fear and guilt but cannot keep its creation (the consciousness of 'Jeff') awake in the first place and spare all the trauma?

Furthermore, Jeffs recounting of his experience didn't end there either. I am being told by you that 'the brain' also manufactured another whole aspect of the experience Jeff had, to include the realization that 'we are all aspects of each other and our BRAINS have nothing to do with it! Indeed, our brains act as inhibitors TO that experience...ordinarily, DI. :)

I can see the theory you present here DI, but also the large holes in it. Certainly if reverse engineered, one arrives at the only conclusion one can. Solipsism.

It is actually more logical to understand the experience as Jeff understands it.
In fact, the same man in the same video said he later met another women and wanted to remarry, so he went back to the grave of his dead wife and ask for her permission. And of course, his dead wife told him that would be WONDERFUL and she wished him the best life ever!
Of course! What you are describing here Di is a man who - even after his experience - is still very much becoming the person he will eventually be...as his story goes... he does not hide this fact that he was not sure of himself as an individual, and still moved within the strength of social customs and emotionally driven activity. Human males are 'designed' by those constructs and oft require the clear directives from the significant female in their lives. It is natural, earthy stuff.
Well, gee. I think a psychologist can easily see what's going on here. This man needs his previous wife to approve of everything he does so that he can free himself of guilt that he would otherwise feel.
In the act, he was seeking closure.

I did a similar thing through the use of the message board. Someone significant in my life and whom I looked up to, had sexually abused me as a youngun, and some years afterward, died before I could confront him.
I used the opportunity afforded to me through the message board to reconnect, tell the individual how his actions had affected me, got an apology, and closure...and thus healing.

Profound things happen and are still dealt with in very human ways. Keeping humble in the face of the profound is admirable, but lets be careful where we consign the source of our inspiration re these alternate experiences, if for no other reason than it allows for the potential and increases alternate knowledge useful in this or any other world.
People imagine what they want to hear. Not what they don't want to hear.
This is not an absolute, by any means DI. If anything, people hear what they need to hear, whether they know this consciously or not. Whether they listen or not is another thing...the imagination is just an aspect of the whole process, same as is the brain.

[yt]syjEN3peCJw[/yt]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

... the imagination is just an aspect of the whole process, same as is the brain.
Exactly my position.

So is this position itself "condescending"?

In other words, is it condescending to tell someone that their imagination is just a part of their normal secular brain activity?

It seems to me that the only people who would feel that this is condescending would be people who believe it to be more than this.

I can certainly understand why they would feel that no one is "believing" them. But it's not that other people aren't believing that they have had mental experiences. All they are saying is that this does not constitute "evidence" of anything more than this.

That's all.

In other words, for the secularist imagination is just as normal part of natural brain activity so why suggest that it is something more than this?

This is not to say that there aren't valid reasons causing these mental experiences. I agree with the points made by Eleanor Longden. She seemed to explain all of this without suggesting that we need to be condescending toward anyone who is having these experiences.

I agree. This is exactly how we should approach this, especially from the perspective of psychology. In fact, it would be extremely ignorant to just dismiss these experiences as being invalid, or unimportant, etc.

But this doesn't mean that we need to valid them as being evidence of the "supernatural".
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply