Calling all professional Dousers, Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers

["Mad" Miles]

The work of Andrew F. Weil is related to these issues, or so I hear. I have not read his recent books, but I've seen his PBS lecture on diet and exercise a few years ago, (Which unfortunately had little affect on my lifestyle, but at least I know fully well how I'm contributing to my own demise! We picks our choices and takes our chances on this spinning wheel.)

I recommend his, The Natural Mind, to anyone interested in issues surrounding drug use, changes in consciousness, the interaction of the body and mind (what a tired old, inaccurate and limited dichotomy that is) with drugs, and vice versa.

In his newer work he asserts an ability of the mind to heal the body. So when it comes to discussing placebo or "the good boy", effect, and forms of "healing" which do not have empirically provable mechanisms easily accessible to mainstream funded science, let alone unfunded independents like Taishon, I understand his work has things to say about all that.

Also I have seen him being slammed/slimed on the internet for being woo and therefore not reputable.

Without having read his work on self-healing, I can't fully endorse him. Or pan him. But he's one of the more renowned commentators on these matters. He is an allopathic doctor who teaches medicine at a university, as well as lecturing and writing for a popular audience.

If anyone has read his recent work, who also maintains a skeptical rationalist attitude on such matters, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about his ideas. And by skeptical rationalist I include being skeptical of rationalism.

Great posts Conrad and Jeff.

[Braggi]

The work of Andrew F. Weil is related to these issues, or so I hear. ...

Thanks Miles. There is something about all of this that actually is measurable, to some degree, and that's stress levels. It's well proven that stress affects health in ways both positive and negative. "Hands on" or even "hands off" methods that result in lower stress levels in the patient can certainly help a "true believer" feel better, and that could result in lower stress which could result in a positive outcome. It's easy to see that a skeptic would be less likely to benefit from such treatments.

I think the bottom line to a lot of Weil's work boils down to that. He addresses lots of other things to because he ... (drum roll please) sells and endorses "nutritional supplements." Sorry to get your hopes up.

-Jeff

[Pickles]

A friend gave me a copy of this (don't know the author) but thought it was worth sharing to this thread that doesn't seem to end........

'REALITY" is what we take to be true.....
What we take to be true is what we believe......
What we believe is based upon our perceptions......
What we perceive depends on what we look for.....
What we look for depends upon what we think.....
What we think depends upon what we perceive.....
What we perceive is what we believe......
What we believe determines what we take to be true......
What we take to be true is our reality.....
So....We create our own reality......

[American Shaman]

This thread is certainly quite interesting, and has been a great chance for me to come out of my shell. I think I have hidden myself for far too long because of my inability to prove or overcome rational questioning. If anyone would doubt me or the things I see or think, I would shut down.

Thank you Taishon for sharing your truth, as it has helped me solidify my own truth and purpose for being here. I look forward to meeting you in person at some of my little chats. May you find the ability to forgive me for my obnoxoiusnes.

Justin Hunter -American Shaman

[podfish]

This thread is certainly quite interesting, and has been a great chance for me to come out of my shell. I think I have hidden myself for far too long because of my inability to prove or overcome rational questioning. If anyone would doubt me or the things I see or think, I would shut down.

Thank you Taishon for sharing your truth, as it has helped me solidify my own truth and purpose for being here. I look forward to meeting you in person at some of my little chats. May you find the ability to forgive me for my obnoxoiusnes.

Justin Hunter -American Shaman

Great perspective, Justin. Occasionally we have posters on some of these threads mention that they're not sure they can hold their own in a discussion. (Clearly some of us have proven we're not shy enough to worry about that ) but I'm really glad when people are willing to contribute and engage. From your comment to Taishon, exactly the right thing happened. For me, seeing reactions to what I've posted, as well as just the extra insight I get into my own thoughts by trying to express them, is the whole point of participation. You haven't seemed to "shut down" in the face of challenges - that's great. And without commenting on whether you in particular have been obnoxious, I'm an advocate of being a bit obnoxious when it's appropriate! I think we can still do that within the bounds of this "conscious community" Barry's tried to establish.

[sharingwisdom]

I have other information from studies on placebos that differ from Jeff's opinion. It's not all or nothing, black or white. For me, life is lived in the grey zones. Our minds are very powerful and how we take in others opinions as truth can shape our lives...as is the case with young children who are like sponges and often form their lifes out of similar patterns of their parents, not necessary the truth of the matter. It's not necessarily about pleasing their parents though in some cases it could be...it's the journey of discovering who they are and individuating through experience. Placebos are also powerful in the understanding of effect of our thoughts.

Placebo effects can arise not only from a conscious belief in a drug but also from subconscious associations between recovery and the experience of being treated—from the pinch of a shot to a doctor’s white coat. Such subliminal conditioning can control bodily processes of which we are unaware, such as immune responses and the release of hormones.

Researchers have decoded some of the biology of placebo responses, demonstrating that they stem from active processes in the brain
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...re-in-the-mind

We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Fabrizio Benedetti from University of Turin says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600

Tor Wager, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, has probably done the definitive brain imaging study. His experiment was brutally straightforward: he gave college students electrical shocks while they were stuck in an fMRI machine. Half of the people were then supplied with a fake pain-relieving cream. Even though the cream had no analgesic properties - it was just a hand moisturizer - people given the pretend cream said the shocks were significantly less painful. The placebo effect eased their suffering. Wager then imaged the specific parts of the brain that controlled this psychological process. He discovered that the placebo effect depended on the prefrontal cortex, the center of "rational," conscious thought. When people were told that they'd just received a pain-relieving cream, their frontal lobes responded by inhibiting the activity of the emotional brain areas (like the insula) that normally respond to pain. Because people expected to experience less pain, they ended up experiencing less pain. https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008...acebo_effe.php

As always, I appreciate the wit and wisdom of Conrad's offerings on Waccobb. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to dispel a popular myth about "the placebo effect."



That's not quite right Conrad. First of all, the blue pill is Viagra, and it's no placebo. :-)

This from an article by someone better informed than myself: "The reason for using a placebo control is that the benefits from taking medications are not always due to the drug itself. These benefits are called “placebo effects.” An example is when an investigator’s enthusiasm about a new medication sometimes influences the patient’s response." [end quote]

The "placebo effect" does not suggest there is some psycho-physical juju at work causing mysterious healings that defy standard medical understanding. The placebo is the desire for the subject of a study to want to please the people running the study. It could be called "the good boy" effect and it would be more descriptive. It most often pops up in difficult to measure issues such a level of pain. A person who actually took a pill will want to please and so will report that a pain is a "level 4" rather than a "level 6" that might be reported by a "control" person who was given no treatment at all. That's why a good study contains BOTH controls and placebos as well as those who receive active treatment. It could easily be said there is no such thing as a placebo effect and there are numerous published articles to that effect.

Therefore, non scientific treatments, such as homeopathic "remedies" that contain no active medicine do not work better than nothing, but the person taking them may report they work better than nothing.

Placebo is NOT a healing modality. It's a reporting error.

-Jeff

[theindependenteye]

That's not quite right Conrad. First of all, the blue pill is Viagra, and it's no placebo. :-)

Dang, that's why that control group got out of control!

This from an article by someone better informed than myself: "The reason for using a placebo control is that the benefits from taking medications are not always due to the drug itself. These benefits are called ìplacebo effects.î An example is when an investigatorís enthusiasm about a new medication sometimes influences the patientís response." [end quote]

The placebo is the desire for the subject of a study to want to please the people running the study. It could be called "the good boy" effect and it would be more descriptive. It most often pops up in difficult to measure issues such a level of pain. A person who actually took a pill will want to please and so will report that a pain is a "level 4" rather than a "level 6" that might be reported by a "control" person who was given no treatment at all. That's why a good study contains BOTH controls and placebos as well as those who receive active treatment. It could easily be said there is no such thing as a placebo effect and there are numerous published articles to that effect.

Dear Jeff—

This is interesting. I don't have time to go beyond reading up on it in Wikipedia. That source summarizes a number of studies that confirm what you say, but it hardly seems to be a cut-and-dried case. Your example of a "good boy" effect is relevant to the kind of study you describe, but there seem to be other sorts of studies that have objective, readable results, e.g. hypertension. Granted, that's shown to be affected by anxiety, and obviously the brain has pretty tight agreements with the endocrine system, etc. But that and other conditions *are* measurable without asking the patient how he feels.

My understanding, from my very scant reading, is that most of the studies of the placebo effect relate to its efficacy as a prescription in itself. A related question is exactly what "statistical significance" means: if placebos show no higher incidence of significant effects in a sample group than a control group doing without, that's not the same as saying there are *no* individual effects either in the sample group or in the control group, or that in individuals who showed measurable improvement it was definitely not the result of a placebo inducing the brain to induce the body to heal itself. It would only show that a placebo isn't a very reliable prescription.

Is the case against placebo effect so well established that no medical research is currently using them except where the patient's subjective judgement enters in? That would indicate too, that the long-reported effects of "patient's will to live," "positive attitude," "doctor's manner," etc., are just myth. And that *any* spontaneous self-curing of the body without the use of drugs or surgery is, and has always been, total illusion.

Interesting issues. I'm glad I don't have to decide tomorrow.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Artaloha]

"Andrew F. Weil ... i have seen him being slammed ... for being woo and therefore not reputable. "
I just have to ask ... what does "woo" mean in this sentence?
Thanks Miles....

["Mad" Miles]

Artaloha,

When I come across an unfamiliar word or phrase on the internet now days, I google it. In fact with the new version of waccobb.net, when I highlight and right click on something, I have the immediate option of doing a google search.

This time I'll do the two words, you've asked me about, for you. Then you're on your own!

Ojala

Woo, it's the first option.


Google, it's easy, convenient and does not require that you ask someone else to help you!

If after googling you still are not sure, I'm then happy to clarify.

But we live in a modern world of wonders, and doing your own research is just a matter of a few clicks.

But not always, on FB last night my oldest friend used the Latin for, "Go and sin no more." I wasn't raised Catholic and the phrase was unfamiliar to me. After googling to no avail, I wrote back and asked him. This morning the answer was waiting for me.

The internet, boon to humanity or total time suck?

Both!

Cheers,

[American Shaman]

"Andrew F. Weil ... i have seen him being slammed ... for being woo and therefore not reputable. "
I just have to ask ... what does "woo" mean in this sentence?
Thanks Miles....

The term I have heard is woo-woo. I don't know if it is spelled correctly, as I have only heard it used in stories coming from people that worked at a place called "ions" Institute of noetic science(some people might consider this organization a little woo-woo).

the term is a way to describe something that is a little too out there: Josh started wearing purple stretch pants, eating raw, and seeing an aura cleanser this week, he sure is getting woo-woo.

Mainly you would use it in a slightly condescending way, but its used mostly by people that are already a little out of mainstream.

["Mad" Miles]

Exactamundo American Shaman,

Woo woo, that's the spelling, has been around to disparage, either affectionately or derisively, depending on context and delivery, since New Age spirituality/psychology reemerged in the early to mid-seventies.

Woo is just a more recent shorthand. I only learned it several months ago while researching Someguy's claims about the evils of vaccination.

I try to stay au courant in spite of my diminishing faculties and ripe old age of fifty-four.

Whoo hoo! (Different word/s)

[podfish]

"..what does "woo" mean in this sentence?

This site has a lot of commentary from a self-titled "skeptical" community. They use the term to identify non-science based doctrines or claims. Usually pejoratively.

It's a pretty high-quality online group, with a lot of interesting participants. Kinda like wacco, but more focused and less regional.

[podfish]

I have other information from studies on placebos that differ from Jeff's opinion. ...

If I read Jeff correctly, he wasn't denying the existence (or range) of what people call the "placebo effect". I think he was saying that the term itself is often misapplied. If my Latin's correct, it translates as "I please" and Jeff's explanation sounds like that's the key factor that's being controlled for.
Most people seem to use the term to cover any situation where the body is encouraged to heal itself.

[Braggi]

... Most people seem to use the term to cover any situation where the body is encouraged to heal itself.

Right podfish. When a doctor prescribes something he or she knows won't help, it's not because the placebo effect is expected to help with the healing. It's because the doctor wants you to go home and get better (and leave them alone) and the prescription will probably give enough time for the illness to pass. It used to be antibiotics which most docs thought of as harmless. Now that we know better it's moving into the area of vitamins and "supplements." Of course, not all of those are harmless either, but that's the stuff of a different thread.

I think we all imagine a good, positive attitude helps with healing though the studies are contradictory on this subject. When a real doctor invokes the placebo effect, it's more about buying time than using a magical healing tool.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I meant to add, the study of the placebo effect is very difficult indeed. It might be more significant for some people than others (of course) and it might make more of a difference with some categories of illness. It's going to be a long time until a study can be devised where the placebo effect doesn't figure in at all. Double blind studies are good in a lot of cases, but they're not perfect either. Imagine doing a double blind study using LSD.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

A friend gave me a copy of this (don't know the author) but thought it was worth sharing to this thread that doesn't seem to end........

'REALITY" is what we take to be true.....

So....We create our own reality......

So please explain to me how the six year old child that was just shot in a drive by shooting created her own reality? Please be specific. I just heard about it on the radio and wish to know the details.

-Jeff

[jesswolfe]

So please explain to me how the six year old child that was just shot in a drive by shooting created her own reality? Please be specific. I just heard about it on the radio and wish to know the details.

-Jeff

This could be a whole new topic and probably is. I guess for me, I do think that we do create our own "experiences." How we ascribe meaning to what happens to us is all up to us. We decide if its good or bad or whatever. Its part of our makeup to look for meaning. But the nature and origin of reality is something much more complex than we can ever imagine or understand.

Jess

[podfish]

So please explain to me how the six year old child that was just shot in a drive by shooting created her own reality?..

your point is taken, but although Pickles gave us the Parade Magazine version, his point is valid. It's extremely unlikely that people are equipped to identify the "true" reality, or even if that's a concept that has much meaning. Most people would indeed agree on a huge range of things that together make up reality; physical injury ranks up there. But even that's not something that people can come to perfect consensus on, as you can see in some of the discussions here regarding health & wellness (cleverly coming back to the thread's theme!!). Sometimes one person's perceptions are accurate, meaning they correspond to a strongly-provable and highly shared reality, while the others are merely subjective, meaning they correspond only to an inner reality experienced by that person. I suspect that most people spend most of their lives living in their subjective experience, though, where it's not particularly relevant whether or not their experience matches anyone else's. It guides their actions and feelings, and is expressed in ways that -do- become more objective reality for the rest of us - but it's their own.

It's extremely difficult to express this clearly without stumbling on weird semantic distinctions. I can't say I'm all that happy with how closely I've come to expressing the ideas. Recently I've been reading Bertrand Russell on the meaning of Einstein's ideas and his examples influence my thinking here. One thing I like about his approach is that he's a physicist - a natural philosopher - trying to come up with ideas and tools that describe the world as objectively as possible. This is different than more purely philosophical approach where things like solipsism come in to play. He points out very clearly that our bodies and minds are extremely poorly equipped to understand the universe we live in, in a very real sense, so by definition we really can't know reality. Instead we come up with functional descriptions that work for us as if they were true.

The cool thing about the physicist's approach is that he can effectively prove that some of the definitions of reality we use can't be right, but that there are very good reasons that they're good enough. And that's what we do with more quotidian reality - we mostly act as if we're perceiving pretty much the same things, thus defining a reality that the more pragmatic among us define as duh-obvious. Questions like what each person perceives when he says a thing is blue seem frivolous; most people agree that something IS blue, however they perceive it, and those who can't agree are considered to be unable to perceive something real.

I guess my point is that we're talking about a very smooth continuum, where a bullet wound is about as real as it gets (as Mike Krukow says, "real as a heart attack"), but the subjective impression of colors is somehow unreal - unknowably different for everyone.

So maybe this clarifies why I'm so interested in the scientific method? It's the only way to pin down something that we can all agree is functionally equivalent to reality.

["Mad" Miles]

Re: "Creating Our Own Reality"

I just watched this linked youtube yesterday. It's about politics, but it's also about the issue of our relationship to the world around us, and he specifically addresses the idea that our attitude and mental/emotional/spiritual intentions/efforts/actions create/determine/shape our experiences and world.

This younger than me by decades guy encapsulates reams of difficult social theory and political philosophy into a few minutes of very accessible and clear speaking. He gives me hope for the future, in a world that we are messing up so badly it's hard to find cause for such hope.


Pod, you posted as I did, here's a reply. You put it very well and touched on issues that have been part of the history of Western Philosophy for centuries. I found it fascinating stuff when I was a Philosophy undergrad. The whole empiricism debate among the English Empiricists (Berkeley, Hume and Locke), in response to Descartes, hashed and rehashed the whole, "what is a color and how do we know it?" question.

I find, along with many more accomplished thinkers before me who are the source of my thinking, that the more important question is about language. Since all linguistic communication is referential, when I say "blue" I'm not directly transferring my concept, let alone my experience, of the color blue to you, I'm referring to an idea/experience that we have consensually agreed (by we I mean the generations of humans, who in this case speak English) to call blue.

It's not a consensus we decided upon in a facilitated meeting last week, it's a consensus we inherited. Because we are individuals, in relatively similar bodies/minds, with shared culture, history, biological existence, and cognitive/linguistic skills on this planet, we can communicate, but we do so with techniques that are inherently limited by our separation and the nature of linguistic referentiality.

This makes us uncomfortable, we're social beings who seek community and intimacy. So we come up with ideas, which on an abstract level are true enough, such as: We're all one. We share the same history, genetics, planet, solar system, universe, web of life, so our separation is an illusion. And while that's true, we also experience what we experience as separate entities with separate minds/bodies and histories.

The play of meaning between those varied states/experiences/"realities" is what makes for the amazing array of creative takes on the whole, whatever it/this is! And there's the fun.

Key point, all description is by necessity abstraction and generalization. So nothing is exactly what it refers to (talking here about language and systems of meaning, called Signs/Signified in Semiology).

Meaning, reality, "The Truth", is by necessity referential and conveyed secondarily. (Yes, I just said this above, it bears repeating.) But that doesn't mean it (Truth, Reality, Oneness, etc.) doesn't exist. It's just not a simple as we like to think it is.

Of course, the counter-argument is from my favorite early literate childhood fictional character:

"I said what I meant and I meant what I said."

Horton Hears A Who, T. S. Geisel / Dr. Suess.

Please watch the video folks, The Punk Activist really does a good job of describing how we create our collective reality, in a way that is accessible to Science.

Cheers,

[Pickles]

So please explain to me how the six year old child that was just shot in a drive by shooting created her own reality? Please be specific. I just heard about it on the radio and wish to know the details.

-Jeff

Have you never been caught up in someone else's "reality"?

Life can be very messy, as all our so called "realities" mix and mingle and invariably there are those who get caught in the crossfire, that in turn affects their reality or those surrounding them. It's all about learning and growth, so we can choose a better reality. Realities are ever changing....that's what makes life interesting and gives us purpose for evolving. If everything and everyone was perfect, what would be the point?

[American Shaman]

So please explain to me how the six year old child that was just shot in a drive by shooting created her own reality? Please be specific. I just heard about it on the radio and wish to know the details.

-Jeff

Point well taken.

I also understand the power of "white lighters", people who envelop themselves in a powerful aura of white and pure light. With this they are able to live lives of innocence in even the harshest of places, and very little bad happens to them. Their realities are affected by it, their freinds have never been arrested, and not once have they ever gone to bed hungry.

These people are not my tribe, I have wanted to belong with them, but my reality is simply too different. My reality allows for innocent people to be murdered, and for people to suffer. I also don't believe in an all powerful god, although I have met and communicated with many different dieties.

I think there is a mistake made about what reality is and isn't, especially within the foundations of "new age thought". We all like to believe that if we simply imagine away all of our darkness, it will be so.

This is the same reason why "the Secret" fails for most people. We all have dark realities and wish them to be so. We intend for a comfortable life, and yet everything that we are is unsuited for such a life.

We created her reality for her.

[jesswolfe]

[QUOTE=American Shaman;122685]
I also understand the power of "white lighters", people who envelop themselves in a powerful aura of white and pure light. With this they are able to live lives of innocence in even the harshest of places, and very little bad happens to them. Their realities are affected by it, their freinds have never been arrested, and not once have they ever gone to bed hungry.

These people are not my tribe, I have wanted to belong with them, but my reality is simply too different. My reality allows for innocent people to be murdered, and for people to suffer. I also don't believe in an all powerful god, although I have met and communicated with many different dieties.
/QUOTE]

We have so many beliefs and judgements about darkness and light. One being bad, the other good. I guess from the perspective of spirit, there is no good or bad. It all just is. And we come here to experience what its like to be in a body. I remember asking a guide once if I knew what I was getting into when I came to this world. I couldn't imagine that I would choose abuse (another reason to not like the Secret). What I was told is that we are all so intent on the experience, that we have no judgement about what we are jumping into. We are here to experience everything.

I don't think I would change the life I have lived. I wouldn't be the person I am now, helping others learn and grow from their own experiences. I have learned that being a witness to all of what life has to offer, the "good" and the "bad", is really grace. I can live with that. :)

Jess

[Clancy]

This is the silliest, most narcissistic, bordering on solipsist development in so-called New Thought philosophy of all. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, there's no point in interfering with child abuse, because the child obviously 'chose' to come here to be abused. If you interfere, you're depriving them of their experience. Same goes for rape, torture, war, etc etc etc.

Psychopathic killers must love this philosophy: But Judge, I was only providing the lesson the victim came here for!

We have so many beliefs and judgements about darkness and light. One being bad, the other good. I guess from the perspective of spirit, there is no good or bad. It all just is. And we come here to experience what its like to be in a body. I remember asking a guide once if I knew what I was getting into when I came to this world. I couldn't imagine that I would choose abuse (another reason to not like the Secret). What I was told is that we are all so intent on the experience, that we have no judgement about what we are jumping into. We are here to experience everything.

I don't think I would change the life I have lived. I wouldn't be the person I am now, helping others learn and grow from their own experiences. I have learned that being a witness to all of what life has to offer, the "good" and the "bad", is really grace. I can live with that. :)

Jess

[podfish]

I guess from the perspective of spirit, there is no good or bad. It all just is. And we come here to experience what its like to be in a body.

Although Clancy's take on these attitudes is a reasonable one (because the quote does say that there is absolutely no such thing as good/evil or right/wrong) I have a different objection.
It's practical - how on earth could you know such a thing?? How can you possibly know so specifically why we're here, or have any understanding of what "spirit" would be to have such a perspective?
I understand the search many/most people take to understand forces that seem to lie beyond our perceptions. I certainly agree that our perceptions aren't adequate for us to understand everything that's real. But along with that I can't accept that anyone "just knows" the rules of the spirit world, or who's controlling it.
Doesn't it give you pause that there have been uncountable people through history who paint absolutely incompatible pictures of the non-physical/non-rational world with incredible detail and conviction? Why would you think they're all wrong and you're not???

[jesswolfe]

Wow. Interesting judgements. I did not say that we should not intervene when someone is being abused. I did not say that we know everything that will happen to us when we get here. I did not say that we "choose" to be abused. I did not say that everyone who is abused in any way has to put up with it because of some weird sense of fate.

I guess I have two responses. The first is, as I said before, we have no idea what the nature of reality is. We don't know what all happens in the spirit world. And there is no way of knowing whose version of cosmology is the right one.

The place I am coming from, and anyone who knows me really gets this, is that part of our way of trying to heal abuse is to find some sense of meaning. Because if we just believe its senseless and random, then there is no way to regain our own power. I know that for me it was pivotal to really realize that the way to my own healing was to find out more about what this experience meant to me and to the people around me. In healing pretty horrific abuse, I learned a lot about my own gifts, my own medicine, my own place in the world. I learned that I was not seperate at all. That I was not along. It has given me purpose. And I know that those experiences in a way give comfort to others who have been abused as well, because they are not alone. And there really is a way to heal and grow and thrive. Each person has to find their own meaning. I can't choose that meaning for them. No one can.

In truth, do I believe I chose to be abused? No. I don't. I think that we have some kind of agenda when we come, but that each person has free will. They get to choose the things they do and we get caught in other people's stories. I would never choose the life I have lived. But I have found peace in the fact that beyond what happened to me, I have a very solid, very bright core that has kept me alive thru things that many people would die from. I didn't die. And I wonder if it would have been possible for me to know that without those experiences.

Maybe the next time you have a reaction, it might be more productive to ask questions to find out more about the other person's experiences and viewpoint. As others have pointed out, its so easy to make assumptions about a person from just words on a computer. There is very often more to the story.

Jess

[Sara S]

Hmmm. Clancy is again making up the "inevitable conclusion" that he can denigrate rather viciously.

I certainly haven't gotten there yet, but Tibetan Buddhism posits the highest state as one in which we can see "the inseparability of samsara and nirvana". This is rather like your statement that there's no good or bad in the spirit.

Wow. Interesting judgements. I did not say that we should not intervene when someone is being abused. I did not say that we know everything that will happen to us when we get here. I did not say that we "choose" to be abused. I did not say that everyone who is abused in any way has to put up with it because of some weird sense of fate.

I guess I have two responses. The first is, as I said before, we have no idea what the nature of reality is. We don't know what all happens in the spirit world. And there is no way of knowing whose version of cosmology is the right one.

The place I am coming from, and anyone who knows me really gets this, is that part of our way of trying to heal abuse is to find some sense of meaning. Because if we just believe its senseless and random, then there is no way to regain our own power. I know that for me it was pivotal to really realize that the way to my own healing was to find out more about what this experience meant to me and to the people around me. In healing pretty horrific abuse, I learned a lot about my own gifts, my own medicine, my own place in the world. I learned that I was not seperate at all. That I was not along. It has given me purpose. And I know that those experiences in a way give comfort to others who have been abused as well, because they are not alone. And there really is a way to heal and grow and thrive. Each person has to find their own meaning. I can't choose that meaning for them. No one can.

In truth, do I believe I chose to be abused? No. I don't. I think that we have some kind of agenda when we come, but that each person has free will. They get to choose the things they do and we get caught in other people's stories. I would never choose the life I have lived. But I have found peace in the fact that beyond what happened to me, I have a very solid, very bright core that has kept me alive thru things that many people would die from. I didn't die. And I wonder if it would have been possible for me to know that without those experiences.

Maybe the next time you have a reaction, it might be more productive to ask questions to find out more about the other person's experiences and viewpoint. As others have pointed out, its so easy to make assumptions about a person from just words on a computer. There is very often more to the story.

Jess

[sharingwisdom]

There is a difference between accountability and blaming. Understanding at a higher level of what is being experienced and learned is not holding the abused at fault or that they should be victimized. Nor is it allowing the perpetrator to continue such acts. We are learning how to rise beyond the victim/perpetrator paradigm if we really want to see a difference in the world. If we stay in this paradigm of blame, then war, hate, rage, projection will continue.

What I sense in what Jess has written is that she has come to forgiveness, which is a state of grace. It is not about forgetting what happened nor allowing it to occur again. It's a transformational place. At an unconscious level, in attempting to protect and defend ourselves, we leach and connect our own power and energy to another who has hurt us so badly, and when the process of forgiveness is complete, our energy and power returns to us. We can be free to operate in our own sovereignty and know that we are safe and so can others. We have our full power to really be present for ourselves and others, to take action if we choose w/o fear but true strength and courage, rather than continue to project our unhealed feelings and expect different results.

I, too, have been abused as a child to the point of having several near-death experiences. And I have chosen the process of forgiveness for each person who hurt me. It has made all the difference in my life. It is freeing and empowering. This doesn't mean that I want those people back in my life or that I must allow such reconnections. And I still have option to speak the truth about what the perpetrators did when it feels appropriate, but there isn't a charge. In fact, I have a great deal of compassion for them. I have pulled the plug out of the electrical socket, discharged from them, and the power is mine. I hold this as a possibility for everyone, because this is what will change the world.

This is the silliest, most narcissistic, bordering on solipsist development in so-called New Thought philosophy of all. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, there's no point in interfering with child abuse, because the child obviously 'chose' to come here to be abused. If you interfere, you're depriving them of their experience. Same goes for rape, torture, war, etc etc etc.

Psychopathic killers must love this philosophy: But Judge, I was only providing the lesson the victim came here for!

[JimGleaves]

I know this thread has basically died, but then i saw this excellent comic on the subject:

[Sara S]

This is great! Where did you find it?

I know this thread has basically died, but then i saw this excellent comic on the subject:

[Braggi]

I know this thread has basically died, but then i saw this excellent comic on the subject:

One thing not included in that chart is black magic. The military most certainly uses it and a lot of Christian groups use it. It's not about "woo woo" supernatural forces turning reality against an enemy. It is all about turning the dark forces that live in the fear places of the practitioners' minds against the enemy. Imagine what Fred Phelps and his family must do to prepare themselves before they go out to "protest." If that isn't black magic, I don't know what is.

-Jeff