--- Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rwas
> > Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite
> > memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize
> > that within the context of the narrow communication style
> prevailent here that this
> > claim means nothing. But your statement would seem to attempt
> rewrite my
> > experiences as false by default.
> > I resent that.
Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered
understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse
found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal,
in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view.
Further more, I notice that despite the ability for the participants
in these dialogs to be aware of different clinically demonstrated
states of conscious that no attempt to address any but the most
simplistic, limited views on consciousness.
In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me
is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard
preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in
truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to
such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is
happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost
certainly flawed initial assumption about existence.
One could easily discard any preconsceived notion about spirituality as
well and adopt a purely abstract playground for developing theories. It
is a simple matter then to test for fitness of a theory to observable
data. I say observable data, not conclusions derived from observable
> That's very interesting. What experiences are you refering to?
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information