From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:32:44 -0800, Celestial_Sounds wrote:   
      
   >   
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   >>   
   >> A bit of context wouldn't hurt...   
   >>   
   >   
   > CONTEXT: I'm convinced that behind the 'veneer' of the skeptic you   
   > are open to and even anticipating and desirous of the reality of OBE.   
      
   As I've told you, personally, I'm open to the "experience" of OBE's, and I   
   consider them interesting in their own right, even if they're nothing but   
   hallucinations.   
      
   > You hover around these boards and OBE related posts and literature,   
   > even excitedly practicing OBE yourself. 'You' include you, and   
   > other skeptics such as the Russell G that this reply is to.   
      
   For reasons that I've given a zillion times before.   
      
   > It's amazing that all this time, attention, and effort is put into a   
   > hallucination. It is easier and less challenging and less vulnerable   
   > and less risky to take the road of 'Oh, there's no proof.   
   > Nothing's there. Oh! Now there's the proof... Proof worthy of   
   > 'me'. I'm so intelligent and so forth that I had to get more   
   > proof to accept it', than to take the maverick road of 'Look at the   
   > present evidence. Something is there'. The first 'I'm so   
   > intelligent skeptic' route seems to be just the veneer you hide   
   > behind.   
      
   Pop-psychology.  How trite.   
   I'm not asking for unusual amounts of proof - just some rather than none.   
      
   > I'm just trying to understand you specifically, as in you   
   > David, and you generally as in you the skeptic. It's so interesting.   
   > It occurs to me that me telling you I succeeded at the card experiment   
   > would be no more substantial than Robert Monroe sharing his experiences   
   > through his book- or any other OBEer for that matter. Sure Monroe and   
   > others had books. Louis and others have no motive for profit and   
   > don't intend to. There are books full of case histories of third   
   > party reports. All of these cases are still another man/woman sharing   
   > what he experienced, or for sake of argument, what he 'thinks' or   
   > 'believes' he experienced. It's interesting. Comments? And how   
   > would my sharing of my results be any different from theirs?   
      
   It wouldn't in the sense of being convincing proof, of course.   
   But it might convince _you_ (although I doubt it), that even your most   
   realistic OBE is nothing but an hallucination.   
      
   If I can turn the question round, how many times would you have to have   
   perfectly real-seeming OBE's in which you get every aspect of the unseen   
   cards wrong before you would conclude that they were not "real"?   
      
   >   
   > Cezyl   
   >   
   >   
   >> > Then David, what is or what are your motive(s) behind suggesting   
   > the   
   >> > card experiment?   
   >>   
   >> To see what happens.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Is that all??   
      
   Yes.  My hidden agenda is, of course, to turn you back onto science. :-)   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)