From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "Celestial_Sounds"  wrote in message   
   news:1108369964.165603.195730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Who wouldn't want OBE to be objectively real? The implications are that   
   you'll never truly die. Very few people don't want to live forever in some   
   sense.   
      
   > 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.   
   > It's amazing that all this time, attention, and effort is put into a   
   > hallucination.   
      
   Not really... Some recreational drug users use drugs because they think   
   their hallucinations are anything ranging from neat to profoundly important,   
   all while being fully aware that they are hallucinations. There are entire   
   websites devoted to the discussion of hallucinations. It's a subculture of   
   'psychonauts', as they like to call themselves.   
      
   > It is easier and less challenging and less vulnerable   
   > and less risky to take the road of 'Oh, there's no proof.   
      
   No. It's definitely NOT less challenging. On the contrary. Doubt is the   
   greatest challenge there is. Faith is, in itself, profoundly unchallenging -   
   which is one reason it is so appealing to so many; it's nice and safe. Can   
   you imagine a more vulnerable state of being than the belief that once you   
   die, you completely cease to exist?   
   The strain that would put on a person is huge. So huge that by far the most   
   people believe in some kind of an afterlife, just to stave off panic or   
   depression.   
   Myself included, by the way.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not unlike the 'I'm so wise and spiritual that I don't have to doubt my   
   perceptions' veneer others hide behind ;-)   
      
   > I'm just trying to understand you specifically, as in you   
   > David, and you generally as in you the skeptic.   
      
   The literal meaning of the word "skeptic" is "one who examines" (as opposed   
   to "one who believes without examining").   
   A skeptic must doubt his or her own judgement.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   A scientist conducting an experiment all alone has nothing, even if   
   spectacular results are achieved.   
   It only becomes something when it can be repeatedly demonstrated in front of   
   others under controlled conditions.   
      
   > Sure Monroe and   
   > others had books. Louis and others have no motive for profit and   
   > don't intend to.   
      
   Sorry to go all cynical on you, but *everybody* has motive for profit - if   
   profit is a possibility.   
   And profit can be something other than money.   
   Say, a person who sets up an OBE forum and plays the role of scientist and   
   teacher on that forum, coordinating the efforts of the persons who buy into   
   that concept. What's the profit in this? Why, a huge ego-boost. Being the   
   center of attention. Power that comes from directing the way a group of   
   people think.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Exactly. It cannot be considered proof in any sense, because even if these   
   people are all being truthful, they may remember the events differently than   
   they really were as a result of their minds trying to make sense of the   
   experience after the fact, filling in any blanks and tying it all together   
   in a meaningful way. The mind does this all the time. Memory is not like   
   videotape.   
      
   > It's interesting.   
      
   Very much so :-)   
      
   > Comments? And how   
   > would my sharing of my results be any different from theirs?   
   >   
   > Cezyl   
   >   
   >   
   > > > Then David, what is or what are your motive(s) behind suggesting   
   > the   
   > > > card experiment?   
   > >   
   > > To see what happens.   
   > >   
   >   
   > Is that all??   
   >   
   > Cezyl   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)