XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com
"CAndersen (Kimba)" on 19 Jun 2004
posted
> "R.Schenck" wrote:
snip
>>Logic is irrelevant since your talking about a metaphysical existence
>>which need not obey oany conceivable logic.
>
> Ah, but it does.
But it does what?
>The limitation apparently lies in what you can
> conceive.
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 find it interesting that on Blackmore's own web site, she includes
>>> an article by Ed Shermer, who says, "In the end, it is probably a
>>> matter of personal preference whether to interpret the NDE as a
>>> glimpse of the life beyond or the product of the dying brain."
>>
>>ie its a matter of irrationally holding a religous beleif about the
>>experience or being rational about it.
>
> Exactly. And the arguments on the "scientific" side definitely display
> the irrational characteristics of deeply held religious beliefs.
How?
>
>>Would you mind elaborating? Not why you dislike the world paranormal,
>>but what the experiences were/are. Paranormal seems a good word,
>>sort of inbetween supernatural and natural. 'Along side natural'.
>
> It's not exactly fair to ask me to refrain from discussing the word
> paranormal when you proceed to do so. The reason I dislike it is that
> it reinforces limited thinking. As you said, "alongside natural", when
> in fact there is much more to what is perfectly natural than what we
> have been trained to believe.
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.
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.
>
> 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. I don't know what
you think I want to disbleive, I have no vested interests in the
situation either way. But thats kinda a moot point because I was just
curious as to what the experience was.
>The best I can
> say to you is that my life is generally better overall; I am happier,
> my family relationships are better, I am even more financially
> successful, since my "paranormal" experiences and the personal journey
> they triggered than at any time beforehand.
Well if you don't want to talk about it fine then.
>
> The best single experience to describe here is probably the time I was
> visited by the spirit of someone I knew, who had just died. It's easy
> to slap the "wishful thinking" label on that, but I had not known she
> had died at that time. I had known that she was ill, but I was told
> she was recovering and I had no reason to think she was going to die.
> It was a brief visit, and she simply told me how good it felt to be
> free of her diseased body, and how much my love meant to her.
Intersting.
See, thats all I wanted to say about it.
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
