Top Neurosurgeon ‘Spent Six Days In Heaven’ During A Coma

[Antlerman]

http://m.samharris.o...-must-be-heaven

This is good from what I've read so far and agree with him. The problem with Alexander is, like the typical mythic believer, he interprets these experiences in the mythic-literal fashion. He "really" went to heaven in how he attempts to translate that level of experience into how he knows to interpret such things. Yes, it's incredibly vivid and more real than any reality we normally experience. No doubt at all. But he misses the point of it. Those are just symbols the mind puts on such a profound experience. Rather than seeing beyond them into the depth of the experience itself, that the symbols are really incidental, the symbols are real objects 'out there' to his mind.

 

Again, this is that child's eye view. The clouds ARE real people looking down on him. Heaven is made up of 'cloud people'. Rather than seeing the clouds as say, a display of beauty against the tent of the sky that takes the soul beyond its entrapment in this flesh into a sense of itself in the universe, that cloud is a sky person who loves him and makes him happy. Both the adult and the child are experiencing joy, but do you see the difference in how both interpret and translate it into their worldviews?

 

See it now? Levels, floors in that building. It is irrelevant how educated he is. That has little do with this particular line of development. Spiritually, he is at the mythic-literal level.

[mcdaddy]

Prove it.

 

I just can't buy into all this "there's another realm or dimension of reality that we all can tap into, but our minds distort it and use "symbols" and whatnot because we can't handle the truth of it" or whatnot. I mean, if a god helmet and psychedelics can reproduce the same effects as an NDE or deep meditation, why SHOULD I believe these visions/experiences are anything OTHER than brain activity? I understand you've had these experiences, AM, and I seriously appreciate that. As one who hasn't, I obviously can't comment on what it's like; and I'm not going to ask for clarification as to how you know this other dimension of reality exists- been there before with you. It just seems the answer science has given are more compatible with the known, common reality we all experience, and that all of these visions are "mythical", even if your mind interprets them past whatever beginners level most see it as. I'm not saying you're outright wrong or anything- it's just that its hard for me to take "on faith". I think you understand that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Again, this is that child's eye view. The clouds ARE real people looking down on him. Heaven is made up of 'cloud people'. Rather than seeing the clouds as say, a display of beauty against the tent of the sky that takes the soul beyond its entrapment in this flesh into a sense of itself in the universe, that cloud is a sky person who loves him and makes him happy.

 

Hi Aman, you don't mean literally the stuff I bolded, do you? Because then you'd be saying that the soul is an entity that can subsist in separation from the body. You'd also be saying that the soul can have a sense of itself as an inhabitant of a universe. That implies that the soul sees itself as distinct from the other inhabitants of the universe, if there are more than one, or if all is One, then the soul sees itself as distinct from the One/Absolute/That. In that case it experiences the Absolute not as the absolute, since the soul experiences separation from it as though there are two. Would that call for an absolute behind the absolute?

 

From your other posts I don't think you mean the above. Perhaps I'm wrongly stuck with the misapprehension that you hold that all is One, when actually perhaps you hold that all is One and all is not One. Perhaps your spirituality ultimately entails an annihilation of language and that's what many of us struggle with when we read your posts. Or are you a neo-Platonist? I.e. that the most fundamental is the One beyond being, and then there is the existing One, and then subordinate levels of being, and the individual soul yearns for release from its individuality and union with the One (though that union can't be annihilation of its separate identity completely, because then it would not be union with the One)? A la Plotinus, who we are told had this experience six times, and Porphyry, once?

 

 

Cheers, bro

F

[Antlerman]

Prove it.

Do the experiment.

 

In the words of the scientist turned Buddhist monk I heard speak with a neuroscientist who studies the brains of long-term mediators last night, "It's really not a question of whether the mountain exists or not, but how do we climb it?"

 

I just can't buy into all this "there's another realm or dimension of reality that we all can tap into, but our minds distort it and use "symbols" and whatnot because we can't handle the truth of it" or whatnot.

This is the problem right here. Conceptually you frame it as "another realm or dimension of reality". It's not. It's this reality, right now that everything exists within. All that changes is your depth of awareness of that reality.

 

This is why I make comparisons to the stages of development with children. Does the world look fundamentally different to you know through your eyes as an adult, as it did to you when you were four years old? I positive the answer is yes, otherwise your sentences would reflect a child's mind. Is it the same world?

 

And when you were four did you think adults where talking about some supernatural reality that only they could see? I would say in some regards, yes, that's how it appeared to you. The only difference is that you hadn't learned to be a cynic yet.

 

I mean, if a god helmet and psychedelics can reproduce the same effects as an NDE or deep meditation, why SHOULD I believe these visions/experiences are anything OTHER than brain activity?

They aren't. I've never said they were, and very specifically said in fact they are. You're not see real gods "out there". These are the images the brain produces to put a face on the experience of confronting the raw essence of existence. They are the mind's manifestation. But do we exist? The answer is yes. This is how our minds present that raw, unmediated exposure to that ultimate state of all existence. And why I say, to see beyond the symbols, the images, the visions, is to truly access who we are, our true Nature. It's not some other realm, it's this realm.

 

To be blunt, as profound and life-altering as these sorts of subtle-level experiences are, through NDE's, meditation, pyschedelics, etc, there is a knowledge beyond all that. These are not the Ultimate, as they are still manifestations of the brain, of the mind. Through meditation, you can move beyond all that into absolute stillness, emptiness, the causal level. Then still beyond that is that non-dual, which I will not attempt to talk to here. The point is, NDE's are not telling you "what's there", as in outside you. They are the faces we put upon the Infinite. They are, in fact, our minds. They are not the Ultimate. But, that hardly means they are "JUST" our brains. They are our brains in response to the Absolute.

 

I understand you've had these experiences, AM, and I seriously appreciate that. As one who hasn't, I obviously can't comment on what it's like; and I'm not going to ask for clarification as to how you know this other dimension of reality exists- been there before with you.

Well, I just clarified that. I'm not saying it's another realm. That's taking the mythic-level understanding of this and imposing it on how I understand it at this point. That's the only context most Western minds have of the spiritual domains, so it centers its debate on that as 'fact or not-fact'. That's the whole fundamental shift in perception I've been driving at. It's an understanding from an entirely different floor in the building.

 

It just seems the answer science has given are more compatible with the known,

That is an illusion, actually. It doesn't explain some very fundamental questions, but to the popularized understanding of science, it seems to have all the answers, or be able, capable of answers all questions. That is a fallacy.

 

I could get into some depth talking to that point, and that point is certainly not to 'discredit' science! Not at all, but to be realistic that how we approach science I believe will prove to be inadequate to the task of the sorts of questions we are wanting it to answer! It's not the right set of tools, as truly powerful as they are. Now I haven't read this book, but was just looking at this article last night and I think it underscores exactly what I'm saying here, so don't hold me to defend everything in it. I'm just saying it speaks to the areas of weakness of our current paridgms we use in science. For me personally I subscribe to an Epistemological Pluralism. There are in fact different domains of knowing, and we must use different tools for those. We can get into this later. Here's that link you should read: http://www.npr.org/b...nd-life-natural

 

 

common reality we all experience

Who is "we"? You and the mystic-sages? You and the 50 somethings? You and the 20 somethings? You and the five somethings? And the real question is this: experience HOW? That's my point. It's all the same reality. Do you presume your understanding is the correct one? Do you presume that Science, or the Bible, or some other outside Authority can tell you what is the correct mode of thinking? Do you assume Science has these answers, as we did the Bible, or our parents, etc?

 

and that all of these visions are "mythical", even if your mind interprets them past whatever beginners level most see it as.

No, they are not all 'mythical'. As I said, in that level of awareness, there may be no visions at all, yet that level of awareness remains. The perception of reality at that level, simply sees 'what is'. It sees that same world you are looking at, but sees and processes it in fundamentally different ways. Again, I'm not saying simply another angle, but a fundamental shift which processes everything through it to the mind; you name it, the bird, the sky, my responsibilities, my job, my friends, my self, my body, my car, the world, my very Being. It is one thing: a shift of center. It is not another realm. It is this realm.

 

I'm not saying you're outright wrong or anything- it's just that its hard for me to take "on faith". I think you understand that.

Yes indeed. Experience replaces faith. Get some experience!

[Antlerman]

From your other posts I don't think you mean the above. Perhaps I'm wrongly stuck with the misapprehension that you hold that all is One, when actually perhaps you hold that all is One and all is not One.

Bingo. That's nonduality. Not one, not two. I-I. It is impossible to fit that into our language which rests in dualities.

 

Someone else called this monism. Which it is not. It is not a conceptual understanding in a scientific sense that all is of one substance. Nonduality includes monism and dualism. It is is experiential reality, not conceptual.

 

Or are you a neo-Platonist? I.e. that the most fundamental is the One beyond being, and then there is the existing One, and then subordinate levels of being, and the individual soul yearns for release from its individuality and union with the One (though that union can't be annihilation of its separate identity completely, because then it would not be union with the One)? A la Plotinus, who we are told had this experience six times, and Porphyry, once?

That is a good way to describe it, but I'm not sure I would say "I'm a neo-Platonist". I'm sure there are things I don't identify with, but what you described works fairly well. "From the One to the many; from the many to the One". We are God. We are us.

 

I believe you're the first to reflect back what I'm saying.

 

 

P.S. Like Plotinus, I have experienced this.

[mcdaddy]

I just.......wow. Idk, dude. It's a lot to ponder.

[florduh]

I think perhaps the "spiritual" view is something like when we long to travel into space, but then realize we are already traveling through space along with this planet. We may leave this planet in a rocket ship, but we're still traveling through the same universe as we always were.

 

Am I close?

[pandora]

I kind of see the God Helmet and an NDE experience like masturbation and real sex, if that makes any sense. We can induce these experiences artificially, or we can experience them naturally, and the induced experiene isn't typically as in-depth as the real thing. The problem with assuming there is something after this life is that the brain is still alive in all of these kinds of experiences. Once the brain dies, I think it is obvious that these things will not be able to be perceived. Perhaps there is an overarching Oneness to consciousness, but any personal perception we have of that thing depends on the fact that we have a brain to process that experience. If I see a cat, me dying doesn't mean the cat no longer exists, but on the other hand, I no longer perceive the cat or anything else for that matter.

 

I say all this even though SWIM had an experience with ketamine that totally killed any fear of death. She felt like she was one with the universe and really didn't have a sense of self or ego, very difficult to describe. I believe that somehow our bodies ease the process of death for us in this manner. It was an awesome experience, but I have a hard time believing that SWIM could experience anything like that without an organic, living brain to facilitate the awareness. Also, some people experience a very personalized NDE, while others describe the kind of Oneness that SWIM felt. I don't know why that is. What really pisses me off is that even if we do survive death somehow, we won't be "aware" enough to even appreciate it or acknowledge that there is something that exists that is more than the sum of our biological parts. The ego will be completely lost, and any ability to access memories or examine anything analytically will be taken away. Such is life, l guess.

[Akheia]

I think I see what you mean, AM. Makes me feel better to think that the neurosurgeon isn't just a fruitcake wanting to sell books but perhaps just someone so spiritually naive that he has these experiences and has to interpret them by a very literal set of symbols. Reminds me of a 15-year-old girl who is convinced, rock-solid convinced, that she's found her ONE TRUE LOVE in the first crush she gets on a rock star. This doctor is doing the equivalent of buying a wedding dress and camping outside Simon Le Bon's house in England, isn't he?

[Antlerman]

I think perhaps the "spiritual" view is something like when we long to travel into space, but then realize we are already traveling through space along with this planet. We may leave this planet in a rocket ship, but we're still traveling through the same universe as we always were.

 

Am I close?

Yes. It has the effect of breaking us free from the constraints of how we view ourselves, bound to this spot, in this body, with this mind. It is stepping above, or out of that position into a much, much larger vista of realization. Our identity moves, and as such with it, the entire depth of experience of our very being. It is that experience of being, that because it is not so confined and constricted, is called "spirit". It is not bound to the flesh, or to the mind in its symbolic representational matrix of reality that we normally embed ourselves within. It is freedom, and we experience oneness with all that is, with ourselves, with the entire universe. Spirit, before and beyond all forms.

 

Does this help?

[MerryG]

I think I see what you mean, AM. Makes me feel better to think that the neurosurgeon isn't just a fruitcake wanting to sell books but perhaps just someone so spiritually naive that he has these experiences and has to interpret them by a very literal set of symbols. Reminds me of a 15-year-old girl who is convinced, rock-solid convinced, that she's found her ONE TRUE LOVE in the first crush she gets on a rock star. This doctor is doing the equivalent of buying a wedding dress and camping outside Simon Le Bon's house in England, isn't he?

 

Well-said, Akheia.

 

But even if the doctor is just naive and desperate to explain his experience in terms he can understand, He's still making one hell of a lot of claims that no responsible scientist would make -- and Newsweek/Daily Beast must be absolutely sodden with cynicism to enable him so flagrantly.

 

Here's a useful take on it, if you find yourself bombarded by xtians:

 

http://justasqpeg.wo...heaven-is-real/

[Antlerman]

I think I see what you mean, AM. Makes me feel better to think that the neurosurgeon isn't just a fruitcake wanting to sell books but perhaps just someone so spiritually naive that he has these experiences and has to interpret them by a very literal set of symbols. Reminds me of a 15-year-old girl who is convinced, rock-solid convinced, that she's found her ONE TRUE LOVE in the first crush she gets on a rock star. This doctor is doing the equivalent of buying a wedding dress and camping outside Simon Le Bon's house in England, isn't he?

Yeah, in a way so. I don't believe these people are 'nuts', who are otherwise sane individuals. These experiences are very real, but again its how we translate it. Speaking of astronauts since Florduh brought that up. Here's an example of having a Satori experience and how someone tries to translate it, having to find some context for it. The astronaut Edgar Mitchell had such an experience in outer space (how awesome is that!). How he described it follows exactly what mystics throughout the ages described in other terms, how experienced meditators describe it today as well, how I describe it myself in my own words. He said,

 

"And suddenly it settled in, a visceral moment of knowing that the molecules in my body, the molecules in the spacecraft, and the molecules in my partners had been prototyped and manufactured in an ancient generation of stars. It was not an intellectual realization, but a deep knowing that was accompanied by a feeling of ecstasy and oneness that I had never experienced in that way before.

 

In that instant, I knew for certain that what I was seeing was no accident. That it did not occur randomly and without order. That life did not, by accident, arise from the primordial earthly sea. It was as though my awareness reached out to touch the furthest star and I was aware of being an integral part of the entire universe, for one brief instance. Any questions that my curious mind might have had about our progress, about our destiny, about the nature of the universe, suddenly melted away as I experienced that oneness. I could reach out and touch the furthest parts and experience the vast reaches of the universe. It was clear that those tiny pinpoints of light in such brilliant profusion were a unity. They were linked together as part of the whole as they framed and formed a backdrop for this view of planet Earth. I knew we are not alone in this universe, that Earth was one of millions, perhaps billions, of planets like our own with intelligent life, all playing a role in the great creative plan for the evolution of life."

 

Now he since then has tried to find a home for this in his many pursuits of ESP, the paranormal, UFO's, etc, but all that does not at all invalidate the experience itself! He is taking this experience and trying to translate it into a rational worldspace, as opposed to the mythological worldspace of this Alexander cited in the OP. All the latter is simply trying to find a framework in order to learn, to attempt to, integrate this experience into their lives. We know, beyond doubt, the reality of that experience, but to make sense of it in how our culture, all our "models of reality" we have, is exceedingly difficult. And this is why you have me putting it into transrational contexts. There is a reason for this. But the models I use are not the reality of it either! They are simply models to try to integrate it for me, and those like me, into a worldspace that is more pluralistic, more worldcentric, more holistic than the rationalist, reductionist modernist worldview.

 

Let me share with you this chart here that may help with a visual of what I'm trying to lay out:

 

 

 

Now at any one of those stages, someone may have the highest level experiences, but that is not their stage of development, and so it will always be interpreted back down into that level they are currently at. Someone at the purely mythic level will experience that Absolute, and take that as God telling them they are to carry forth the word of their tribal religion to the world. You see?

 

I'll leave it at this for you to digest some more.

[MerryG]

No matter what this man experienced subjectively, it's inexcusable that he's trying to sell this now as "science" and objective evidence. And it's worse that a once-respectable publication is uncritically (or cynically) helping him do it.

 

It's one thing for a person who has experienced the numinous to spend his own life exploring further -- even if it leads him down dubious paths. Who can have a problem with that?

 

It's another altogether to get up and shout to a crowd of rubes, "I'm a scientist! I understand the brain! Therefore everything I say about this is objectively true!" THAT is just contemptible.

[Antlerman]

No matter what this man experienced subjectively, it's inexcusable that he's trying to sell this now as "science" and objective evidence. And it's worse that a once-respectable publication is uncritically (or cynically) helping him do it.

Well, yes. That's pretty poor science. What he needs to do is compare the experience with other's experiences, interview them, hear how they speak of it, compare it with his own, etc. That at least is an empirical approach. But to simply say, "I'm a scientist and I saw God and this proves the afterlife isn't a myth", is hardly careful science.

[Deva]

That which creates and sustains the world, you may call it God or providence, but ultimately you are the proof that God exists, not the other way round. For, before any question about God can be put, you must be there to put it. - Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

 

But this takes a lot of meditation to realize...

 

Sounds simple but isn't.

[qadeshet]

This guy spent six days in a coma and saw Heaven. I thought you had to die to get there? I think he woke up from his coma and decided on a good book idea and movie deal.

[par4dcourse]

Anyone who has experienced a very realistic dream knows the human brain can create a very convincing image, complete with emotions. Fear of death is the reason mythology and religion exist.

Once again, you guys totally miss the point. I haven't watched this video as I just read this thread a few minutes ago. You try to interpret this as somehow either validating, or dismissing, this external idea of a mythological God. Gaaah... you don't get it. You're trying to debate a Sunday School image as fact or fantasy. That's not the point. Why is it you're stuck here?

 

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

 

I try to stay out of here but sometimes there's something of interest I want to respond to. I think I expressed my view well, but (we) still evoked a tongue lashing. Is disagreement with the OP verbotten, or must all opinions just harmonize with yours to be "intelligent, rational, reasoned"? There's growing discontent over the "rules" of this section.

[Antlerman]

Anyone who has experienced a very realistic dream knows the human brain can create a very convincing image, complete with emotions. Fear of death is the reason mythology and religion exist.

Once again, you guys totally miss the point. I haven't watched this video as I just read this thread a few minutes ago. You try to interpret this as somehow either validating, or dismissing, this external idea of a mythological God. Gaaah... you don't get it. You're trying to debate a Sunday School image as fact or fantasy. That's not the point. Why is it you're stuck here?

 

I don't have time to dissect the living hell out of the faults in the comments here as I have a delicious dinner ahead, but should someone wish to explore beyond the sorts of typical arguments I hear here, I'll be happy to have an intelligent, rational, reasoned, discussion into these areas. Seriously, does it give you comfort to prop up and knock down an image created from your Christian past, and not see beyond it?

 

I try to stay out of here but sometimes there's something of interest I want to respond to. I think I expressed my view well, but (we) still evoked a tongue lashing. Is disagreement with the OP verbotten, or must all opinions just harmonize with yours to be "intelligent, rational, reasoned"? There's growing discontent over the "rules" of this section.

Believe me that was no tongue lashing. It was me expressing frustration of seeing your reasoning and rational folks still chasing the same tail on the same dog. I express this in the hope you put a sharper edge on it. I wasn't speaking as a moderator, which were I, I would simply have laid the hammer down. I saw no need to, as I was hoping to engage the reasonable minds here into, well, being reasonable.

 

Seriously, it would be awesome to have you engage in dialog with numerous of the points I raised in the last several posts here. I love using the mind exploring stuff beyond just ideological rhetoric.

[Antlerman]

Akheia, and others, here's another chart that I think will also help with what I'm referencing in these posts. This one covers many areas, but when I was speaking of the 'floors' of that building, I'm referring to stages of development. I like this chart as they put an explanation of each stage and how it compares to others. Look this over and I look forward to talking more with you about it.

 

[Akheia]

That entire Square Peg blog is worth reading, but his post about the neurosurgeon deserves an award. Between that and Harris' takedown, I don't see how anybody sensible would buy that this guy literally saw heaven or angels, etc. I'm unlikely to be bombarded by Christians, but my beloved's mom and some other folks are visiting for T-giving and they're all Christian of varying sorts so who knows what joys await she who is patient?

 

AM, glad you posted the second diagram; the first makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, and I am not employing hyperbole for a change here. I literally have no fucking idea what the first thing means, though I do like the pretty colors. The second at least makes a little more sense, but I confess I see it and something my mom once said rings in my mind's ear: "don't be too heavenly-minded to be any earthly good." Clearly the maker of this chart thinks that the thingie at the top on the left there about the holistic self is what is most desirable, but I don't know how that mindset would translate to an everyday life among other flesh-and-blood people. See what I mean? Every outlook has its place; none is inherently inferior to any other--or superior for that matter. But I perceive that people who make charts like these feel very differently. It bothers me that those who are really metaphysical act like the rest of us schlubs are just not evolved enough, darn it! If you're wondering if I've gotten that vibe from you, you probably wonder that for a reason.

[blackpudd1n]

Par: Do you really think there is a "growing discontent"? Is it on your part, or are others also upset?

 

I am just interested.

 

Well, it's pretty easy to know when and where you're not welcome.

[Akheia]

In fairness, this is the ex-C spirituality board. Being a little more open to metaphysical explanations and ideas is part of the forum rules. Out of every single board on this forum with the exception of the extimony section, this is the one place where that openness is requested. I appreciate having a safe space even if I don't always necessarily go along with every single discussion I see here.

[Antlerman]

AM, glad you posted the second diagram; the first makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, and I am not employing hyperbole for a change here. I literally have no fucking idea what the first thing means, though I do like the pretty colors.

I can certainly explain it if you wish.

 

The second at least makes a little more sense, but I confess I see it and something my mom once said rings in my mind's ear: "don't be too heavenly-minded to be any earthly good."

But this is not "heavenly minded". It's academic. It is all about research and reason, just modeled together in a fashion that makes good sense and "fits the data". Is it complex? Yes, but that's not some sort of metaphysical speculation. This is all based on research by specialists in their given fields.

 

Clearly the maker of this chart thinks that the thingie at the top on the left there about the holistic self is what is most desirable, but I don't know how that mindset would translate to an everyday life among other flesh-and-blood people. See what I mean?

It's incredibly useful. Just like Piaget's stages of development are in fact useful all the time, from things like psychology, to education, to evolutionary theory. Piaget is in this, as well as Gebser, and Graves, and other developmental theorists. All of which has practical usefulness.

 

Now, you're getting a peak "behind the scenes" of where I am coming from. This isn't all just some esoteric, transendental realization stuff here. It has backing in actual research, which you are seeing exposed here.

 

Every outlook has its place; none is inherently inferior to any other--or superior for that matter.

This perspective reflects the postmodernist view, which although valid and powerful in many useful ways, has some inherent flaws to it, which you just expressed here that there is nothing better or worse, inferior or superior. The inherent flaw is a performative error, which says no view is any better than any other, except of course for that view itself.

 

I disagree. We do valuate things all the time, and there is nothing evil about that. Yes, hierarchies under power structure create all manner of imbalance and injustice, but there is a way to allow hierarchies to exist in healthy ways. The postmodernist in response to modernity sought to destroy all hierarchies, but it fails to in many ways. There is nothing wrong it saying good is better than evil; worldcentric is better than egocentric - but that comes of course with qualifications. Egocentric is appropriate at early stages of growth, inappropriate at later stages, etc.

 

But I perceive that people who make charts like these feel very differently. It bothers me that those who are really metaphysical act like the rest of us schlubs are just not evolved enough, darn it! If you're wondering if I've gotten that vibe from you, you probably wonder that for a reason.

Well, that simply isn't true. I don't consider you or anyone inferior. But I can say that certain views are more limited in understanding, and that is the value and importance of sharing these things. It sure as hell helped me in my personal growth. I don't make value judgments about you.

[Antlerman]

Par: Do you really think there is a "growing discontent"? Is it on your part, or are others also upset?

 

I am just interested.

 

Well, it's pretty easy to know when and where you're not welcome.

Everyone is welcome.

[Akheia]

Please do explain the pretty colors. I don't like seeing something and not getting it at all. Is it some Magic Eye thing? I'm not good at those.

 

The reason I state that these phases in the 2nd diagram are not inherently superior or inferior is not because of post-modernism, which I don't care for much either it sounds like, but because of this: the societies and people that are functioning at the levels of these various phases are like that because they must be. Imagine if you and I and a bunch of people from this board got thrown into a prehistoric past with only our wits and opposable thumbs to save us. Obviously we will need to pursue a "beige" model of existence until we get our living situations stabilized. It would be idiotic to try to pursue higher modes of existence when our very lives are threatened. I don't value the upper levels of that spirituality chart in my own personal life because I'm struggling already with the lower levels of understanding. I am not inferior because of this and neither is my approach to spirituality. I cannot and don't want to force myself into some higher functioning; that'd be as in-authentic for me as my previous attempts to force myself into the fundie mold. I'm glad to hear and learn about other ways of doing things, but reject the idea that those other ways are necessarily better for me and my current life situation than what I do already.