XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: KimbaWLionATaolDOTcom@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:17:25 +0000 (UTC), "R.Schenck"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Please explain how a metaphysical system can be logical if it is   
   >specifically stated to be illogical and irrational.   
   >   
   >IOW how can the metaphsyical system we are talking about behave in a   
   >completely irrational way and specifically not be bound by things like   
   >logic or say cause and effect and remain a logical system?  I suppose   
   of   
   >course that a metaphsyical system can do this because, well, it can do   
   >anything.  It can I guess by definition be illogical and behave   
   logically   
   >while remaining illogical.  It can have square circles, negative   
   >distance, sensible anti-sense and other contradictory things. While I   
   >think that that might be true its certainly meaningless.  Is this what   
   >you meant tho or am I supposeing too much?   
      
   I think you're supposing too much. I don't understand why you assign   
   such characteristics to the subject of there being an animating force   
   that can exist separately from a physical body. Just because accepted   
   physical laws do not apply does not mean that we've entered the realm of   
   a bad LSD trip.   
      
   The logic that applies is the logic of love. And I know that statement   
   carries a whole separate set of baggage, because our society in general   
   has a very dysfunctional picture of what love is. But it's the reason I   
   was initially suspicious of the original poster's message, because there   
   was no logic to it; it seemed more like the average person's opinion of   
   such things--if you can communicate with dead people, why *shouldn't*   
   you be able to contact John Candy? But if you have no personal   
   connection with that person, why *should* you? For most people who have   
   these experiences, there are strong emotions that aid in making the   
   connection.   
      
   In the OP's case, there is another possibility (and, since I don't know   
   his history I don't know if there are indications that would invalidate   
   this idea, but let's get hypothetical). Those who are experienced in   
   spirit communication will often say that everyone has the ability, it's   
   just that nearly everyone shuts it off. If a person were extremely   
   gifted in this area but had no idea what he was doing, it's conceivable   
   he may show symptoms similar to the OP's. A physical analogy would be   
   like a confused stranger breaking into your house and acting like he   
   knows you intimately, then wondering why he is there. But even if the OP   
   were having real, albeit confused, experiences, the point is practically   
   moot because I don't know that there is anyone prepared to help him   
   understand and control his experiences.   
      
   >> And the arguments on the "scientific" side definitely display   
   >> the irrational characteristics of deeply held religious beliefs.   
   >   
   >How?   
      
   By displaying a lack of inquisitiveness, by insisting that a particular   
   subset of research defines all there is to know about a subject, by   
   exhibiting a definite lack of logical thought, and by adamantly refusing   
   to acknowledge other viewpoints without reason. Really, the nature of   
   these arguments is often the same whether the subject comes up in a   
   skeptics' group or a Christian fundamentalists' group.   
      
   >Ok but that would'nt be technically paranormal.  Its sorta like saying   
   >that a being from another dimension who has super powers and can   
   control   
   >all sorts of things thru advanced technologies and advanced science is   
   >supernatural.  It would look supernatural to primitives like us but it   
   >would still be, as far as the interdimensional super freak was   
   concerned,   
   >naturalistic entirely.   
      
   The quibble I have with that analogy is that you place it in "another   
   dimension", thereby separating it from the natural laws of this   
   dimension. I'm talking about matters of perception of what exists in our   
   own dimension. And perception is colored by many things, including   
   words. The ability of the human mind to deny reality is astounding.   
      
   >If something is truly supernatural and paranormal (outside of   
   >vulgar/popular 'x-files'y usage of the term paranormal)  then it can't   
   be   
   >entirely natural.   
      
   And my contention is that what is accepted as "entirely natural" is a   
   limited subset of reality.   
      
   >> Anyway, since my experiences are not reproducible on demand, they're   
   >> hardly likely to convince those who want to disbelieve.   
   >   
   >Even if they were they still wouldn't be convincing.   
      
   Which is why I generally limit my excursions into this area to   
   supporting those who have had similar experiences. You'll note that my   
   entry into this thread was on the point that NDEs aren't real. I had no   
   intention of responding to the OP since what he wrote was very much   
   alien to my experience.   
      
   >Intersting.   
   >   
   >See, thats all I wanted to say about it.   
      
   Thank you. You don't have to be convinced. If you're interested in the   
   subject, just compare my words with others'. A big picture will   
   eventually become clear.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Reply address munged. You can figure it out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)