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

[Antlerman]

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.

Thank you! Yes. It's not that we can't talk about differences of view, but calling it "woo", or "Prove it!", or such crap as that, is not sitting down at the table and have a respectful discussion. That's just waving a banner about how stupid everyone else is. People aren't stupid, because they have reasons for seeing things differently. The topics center an interest in spirituality, not in so-called "debunking" it. That's the difference.

[mcdaddy]

I. Just. Can't even.

 

 

 

Maybe when I'm older sans kids or something.

 

[Antlerman]

I'll have to get back to you later on as I'm out now for the day. But be assured, none of this is to belittle your approach. If you look at that 2nd chart, read the descriptions under Integral. That's more where I'm coming from in this.

[Akheia]

Thank you! Yes. It's not that we can't talk about differences of view, but calling it "woo", or "Prove it!", or such crap as that, is not sitting down at the table and have a respectful discussion. That's just waving a banner about how stupid everyone else is. People aren't stupid, because they have reasons for seeing things differently. The topics center an interest in spirituality, not in so-called "debunking" it. That's the difference.

 

Thank you for saying it that way because that's what my inelegant response earlier was trying to say.

[Ouroboros]

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.

Then perhaps you understand how I felt in the thread about the Historicity of Jesus. I felt that way from the mythists.

[mcdaddy]

AM- as I told someone else earlier, I think either you're FUCKING BRILLIANT or a freaking loon. I just have no idea which one it is, honestly. Which is the same for all sages over all times I guess, right? You definitely don't come across as a "loon"- which why, for me, I think I lean slightly towards "brilliant" or, maybe this is better, "more in tune with shit". I think if I smoked a doob and had an IRL talk with you I'd get this much better.

 

I respect what you do, it's just more than I can "see" right now.

 

Or you're just loony and I'm right. haha

[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.

Everyone is welcome.

 

I'm not going to get into this tonight. I'm not in the right headspace.

[mcdaddy]

Btw- I hope you realize anything I say is tongue-in-cheek. "Loon" is hyperbole. I do value your information and input.

[Akheia]

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.

Then perhaps you understand how I felt in the thread about the Historicity of Jesus. I felt that way from the mythists.

 

(((hugs))) I'm glad you told me and I'll try my best to remember if it comes up again. Thank you. And BP too. Sometimes I get caught up in something and don't think about my impact on other people. I try to watch out for narcissistic tendencies but I fail sometimes. Or a lot. Anyway thanks for letting me know that was how you felt. That brings a lot of things into focus for me about why the conflict felt like it did for me at least. If I act ultra-evolved again just tell me and I'll know what you mean.

 

I'm glad AM is here on ex-C too We need everybody's ideas. Right now each of us is at where we're at because that's what's working at least in some capacity for where we are. Even the literalists like the neuro guy in the OP is where he's at because that's what makes sense to him. Without AM and his inspired lunacy/wisdom (and I also mean that in the most respectful and loving of ways, very tongue-in-cheek), we wouldn't know any other way to approach stuff. Sometimes what's "working" feels a bit wobbly so I'm always happy to expand and learn. My mom knew how to drive stick, but she drove automatic because that's what she was most comfortable doing. I didn't know how to drive stick till I bought the Miata, and it was scary as hell to learn, but now it's much more comfortable for me than an automatic. Plus, jagged little mountain roads. Just not in me to say that either stick or automatic is inferior or superior. Each is better-suited to some things, worse-suited to others, and besides that people have preferences. This neurosurgeon dude's more literal approach might have worked before, but now he's bumping up against the limitations of the ideas by claiming that yes it was ALL REAL GUIZE NO REALLY, with "real" meaning "flesh-and-blood," but that's not an approach that's worked for the past century or so. Will he reach past that? Or double-down on literalism? TUNE IN TOMORROW...

 

I'm not good at analogies but at least I can admit it unlike the fundies... Also the whole experience described by the neurodude sounds pretty neat and I wouldn't mind experiencing it but I'm a product of the "just say no" campaigns and it worked on me so I'm very chicken about drugs.

[Ouroboros]

+1

 

But you weren't the worst one. You came around at some point and we had a good discussion.

 

And believe me, I'm not suggesting I don't act that way at times too, probably more often than I realize.

 

Discussion can be very difficult. Everyone will bring their own preconceptions and ideas to the table, and we read each other's posts based on what we think they're saying, not what they actually are saying. Sometimes I try to remember to empty my skull from everything that could influence the interpretation, but it's impossible to do it completely.

[par4dcourse]

 

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

 

I am just interested.

 

I could get ten members to speak up, but I won't ask them. You've read this section enough to read the folks who do speak up.

 

My bad. I'll just have to be more careful to not read or respond to anything in this section. I don't believe hard core skeptics are really "welcome."

[Akheia]

FWIW, I see what you mean, I think, Par. It's a bit of a dance in a way, the people who have a religious/spiritual faith system in the other sections, and those who have eschewed them all in this section.

[florduh]

I don't believe hard core skeptics are really "welcome."

 

I am a skeptic, and I think everyone should be. The validity of a thing should be demonstrated before acceptance of it is forthcoming. But maybe that's just me.

 

I am always curious about WHY people believe what they do. My SIL, for example, believes in Jesus because she chooses to/wants to. Whatever, it's her "reason." Another person believes in "spirit guides" because a psychic gave her a prediction from her guide which came to pass. Another swears that she was healed by a crystal. Another has had prayers answered by certain Pagan deities. Yet another swears her "spells" accomplish great magical results, so she believes in witchcraft.

 

What really frustrates me is someone like my SIL who just decides to believe something improbable without having even the slightest excuse.

 

So I'm curious as to why people have such wide-ranging superstitious beliefs and never apply any critical thought. I think "why" is a fair question, but it's usually seen as an attack, so..........

[Realist]

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

 

I am just interested.

 

I could get ten members to speak up, but I won't ask them. You've read this section enough to read the folks who do speak up.

 

My bad. I'll just have to be more careful to not read or respond to anything in this section. I don't believe hard core skeptics are really "welcome."

 

... Par ... make that eleven! I started to write more on that ... but I decided not. One of the reasons I do not bother posting much anymore!

[Antlerman]

Skepticism is healthy. I don't know how hardcore and skeptic go together. That's a contradiction in terms. Do we mean hardcore atheist? If so why are they interested in discussion here? They're self proclaimed hardcore. I don't get it.

 

[pandora]

I'm not upset at all and I enjoy reading the opinions of the more spiritually inclined. It is fun to think of possibilities. There is something to be said for an experience that essentially can change a person's outlook on life and take away a big fear.

 

On the other hand, I do find it disappointing that no one seems to want to address the things I and others have brought up. So if there is an afterlife of sorts, and we won't be aware of it because we don't have a brain, what is the point of striving too hard to get in touch with that reality now and describe it in some drawn out theory? I think it is more useful the more vague it is. Ken Wilbur and the Integral stuff is just more of the same to me and it makes us prone to labeling others as inferior to us. I have known people to take that stuff way too seriously. The end lesson is that we are all connected and tapping into this feeling helps some people become more content with this life. Others don't need to feel these things to live with compassion or whatever quality it is that we valuing here. Others are changed by these experiences. Do the spiritual on this board contend that somehow tapping into this stuff betters humanity somehow? That somehow humanity will get better or more compassionate by such awareness? Again, I'd argue that no matter how One feels with whatever, it doesn't change a damn thing except one's personal life. To me, this stuff only matters while we are alive and it is very personal. Any attempt to categorize or define one's personal spirituality immediately lessens its value because it encourages labeling others as less enlightened, bringing one back to dualistic thinking. Each person's journey is unique and we all must walk our own path whether it be through woo, Oneness, spirit, materialism, or nothing. We all end up at the same place, and the only thing that is affected by spirituality is one's own happiness.

 

I'm not sure that made much sense, so sorry about that. I just kind of vomited random thoughts I've had on these issues all in one paragraph.

[Antlerman]

I don't believe hard core skeptics are really "welcome."

 

I am a skeptic, and I think everyone should be. The validity of a thing should be demonstrated before acceptance of it is forthcoming. But maybe that's just me.

I agree with this. Something should make sense and have promised value with reasonable exceptions. I'm fully with you on this.

 

What really frustrates me is someone like my SIL who just decides to believe something improbable without having even the slightest excuse.

It depends on the person. Some people really honestly don't care to have to justify themselves to someone who probably just won't understand the differences in approach between people. That could be a reason. For myself however, I'm more that happy to offer support to how I see things. Ask away. Your healthy skepticism is gladly welcomed.

 

So I'm curious as to why people have such wide-ranging superstitious beliefs and never apply any critical thought. I think "why" is a fair question, but it's usually seen as an attack, so..........

If I see it as an attack, I'll let you know. But I don't see reasonable questions as attacks. However, you just called "supertitious beliefs" something that may just simply be outside your experience or understanding at this point. If applied to me, for instance, I first see that as a sign of your ignroance, and an attack as well. You should give me the benefit of the doubt.

 

Bottom line, curious skeptics are welcome!!! Hardcore, fundamentalist whatevers, "You're just believing woo!", is just religion in another coat. That's not discussion, that's "We've got the Truth! Aren't we special, us Brights!". You do see the difference, don't you?

 

So when I hear people say that differences of view are not allowed, I hear someone not listening because they're too "hardcore" to hear. "Our voice isn't allowed," to me translates into I should be allowed to just challenge woo when I hear it". No, go fly your flag outside in your own parade in your own honor. We're trying to respect others rights for discussion here. That's not skepticism, that's religious dogma.

[florduh]

Do we mean hardcore atheist?

I don't know what a hardcore atheist is. Is it anything like a hardcore spiritual person?

 

I would hope everyone thinks things through and comes to a reasoned conclusion. There comes a point where one can make such a final conclusion after thoroughly examining evidence. Conclusions may differ. I, for one, remain open to new evidence, though none has been forthcoming for quite some time now.

[Realist]

"We've got the Truth! Aren't we special, us Brights!". You do see the difference, don't you?

 

 

... maybe that's where the main problem is Ant? That's funny ... because I ALSO see that attitude firmly coming from the other viewpoint on here!

[Antlerman]

Do we mean hardcore atheist?

I don't know what a hardcore atheist is. Is it anything like a hardcore spiritual person?

I direct your attention to what I was asking the question to:

I don't believe hard core skeptics are really "welcome."

Yes, hardcore spiritual is contradiction in terms as well as hardcore skeptic. Hardcore anything is religious fundamentalism, Atheist or Christian, and my point stands, neither are interested in discussion, just proving themselves right. That is in fact, not welcome at the table. Should it be?

 

Let's not mistake skeptism with being hardcore. That's my point. Par, has co-opted a reasonable term as a positive term for "Atheism", and then tacked "hardcore" onto it, thus betraying it's meaningless. Do you disagree with this?

 

I, for one, remain open to new evidence, though none has been forthcoming for quite some time now.

And I don't consider you "hardcore". You in fact ask me valid questions, and I respect that. Par, on the other hand, is welcome to join the discussion should he wish to not wear a leather jacket to the table with a Maltese cross on it with the words "Hardcore" above it.

 

 

Anyway, I've made my point. Let reasonable discussion amongst reasonable minds continue.... back on topic

[Antlerman]

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.

 

Remind me to get back to it later. It'll take some energy, and I'm enjoying a beer and relaxing while I respond to you. In short it has to do with the various theorticians work with subjects in stages of development, in moral lines, cognitive lines, etc and the various stages of growth in how the correspond to one another. More on that later.

 

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.

Put that way, you and I are saying the same thing. They must be. It is appropriate for them at their stage of growth. That's the integral perspective. The modernist says "They're wrong!", and proudly raises the glass in toast to themselves.

 

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.

Absolutely, you need to do your process, as I did, and still am. You are on your road, and that's tremendous! Hopefully understanding some of this will help provide some context for you as you navigate these spaces. I'm in a different place now, but believe me, I don't see you as inferior at all! Is this "better" than where I was then? Well, yes of course. Just as you're in a better place now than where you were as a Christian, and where you'll be tomorrow, and where I'll be tomorrow.

 

In short, growth is in fact about moving to 'better' or higher stages of development. Everyone, mostly anyway, will say that love is better than selfishness. Love is more developed than selfishness. But, selfishness is exactly good for someone at that stage of growth. They need to be in order to grow to the next stage. Where I will be in 10 years, should be even better than now! How's that for a way to put it, not "better", but "even better"?

[Antlerman]

AM- as I told someone else earlier, I think either you're FUCKING BRILLIANT or a freaking loon. I just have no idea which one it is, honestly. Which is the same for all sages over all times I guess, right? You definitely don't come across as a "loon"- which why, for me, I think I lean slightly towards "brilliant" or, maybe this is better, "more in tune with shit".

I don't know about "fucking brilliant", but I certainly am not a loon.

 

I think if I smoked a doob and had an IRL talk with you I'd get this much better.

Probably. There's a new member on this site that I went out for some beer with last Saturday, and I poured this stuff out for 5 hours straight. I didn't mean to dominate the conversation so much, but he wanted to understand as much of it as he could, he said. If he joined the discussion here, I think he'd tell you I'm not insane. He's a biologist who likewise find this "hardcore" rationalism to be falling short of the mark. That's his interest in this, and he's find validity to it.

 

I respect what you do, it's just more than I can "see" right now.

 

Or you're just loony and I'm right. haha

Well, I think it takes some inner exploration as well, otherwise it's all just so much theory. It makes a great deal of sense, rationally, and in a spiritual developmental context. It'd be nice that healthy skepticism continued to lead to discovery, instead of devolving hardcore cynicism (aka, hardcore skeptic). Always good to see people continuing on in their growth beyond fundamentalist thinking.

[Akheia]

I guess I'm seeing my process, and BP's, and Florduh's, and everybody else's as parallel tracks and not as one big long track where one person is further along than everybody else or anybody's lagging behind.

[Antlerman]

On the other hand, I do find it disappointing that no one seems to want to address the things I and others have brought up. So if there is an afterlife of sorts, and we won't be aware of it because we don't have a brain, what is the point of striving too hard to get in touch with that reality now and describe it in some drawn out theory? I think it is more useful the more vague it is.

Sorry if I've missed these questions. They're valid points. I'll try to address them. I don't concern myself with the afterlife. There is only life, and that is now, in the moment. I find focusing on the afterlife, puts the focus on the small self, the ego identity, trying to preserve it in this form, and in so doing you never move beyond it to the potentials that are in all of us. Spiritual traditions commonly have this theme of death and resurrection for a reason. It's about dying to the egoic self, to find your true Self. The reason for the practice is simple - liberation, freedom, or to use the soiled term from Christianity, salvation. It has nothing to do with keeping this husk preserved for our new happy home in the great beyond, it's about finding freedom to live life spiritually, now.

 

Why the elaborate theories? Hah! Well, because we live in the Age of Reason, and in order for people to give validity to anything, it better be rational! Of course, living life simply is in fact the goal of this. It is not some elitist, intelligentsia club, but about integrating this type of knowledge into a rational world. At the end of the day, the final stage of growth, is very simple. Living life. We have to grow in all areas of our lives, and to be honest, because the spiritual in our culture is REJECTED by rationalists, the only home you have for it is in fact in Christianity here, which is sad as it doesn't rise to meet the rational world. It has not been allowed to evolve to meet reasoning, skeptical minds in any intelligent fashion. For those who require that, here it is. Here's a way to not flush reason down the toilet because you also value the spiritual. For those who don't, you do not need to know this! It is not through knowing this that you find that. Period.

 

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, you cannot penetrate those inner spaces using reason and rationality. But you can understand them as reasonable, using reason and rationality. In order to drink from that well, you have to, you must set aside all that and allow it to simply be. In that action, that effortless effort, what is gained is enormous insights into the nature of who we are. Then, if you wish to try to talk about it in a rational community, you certainly have some tools available for that. But those models, again, are not the truth itself. They are at best maps, not the territory itself!

 

Ken Wilbur and the Integral stuff is just more of the same to me and it makes us prone to labeling others as inferior to us. I have known people to take that stuff way too seriously.

Yes, and I would say they are missing the point big time. I admire Wilber, but not as some guru. He doesn't see himself that way either, but you know some former Christians looking for the new Answer with a capital A!

 

The end lesson is that we are all connected and tapping into this feeling helps some people become more content with this life.

I think saying being content is valid, but in a certain context of saying deeply fulfilled. I would say there is a greater, richer, and deeper fulfillment to be had, and every should purse that. At the end of that is a more compassionate view of life, and that would serve everyone very well.

 

Others don't need to feel these things to live with compassion or whatever quality it is that we valuing here. Others are changed by these experiences.

I would say this is true, but it is a matter of degrees. The water is quite deep in that Ocean, but no matter which part you drink from it, it is all the same wetness. And that is perfectly wonderful.

 

Do the spiritual on this board contend that somehow tapping into this stuff betters humanity somehow? That somehow humanity will get better or more compassionate by such awareness?

Yes. Unequivocally yes. Absolutely. Every time I drink from that Well, it is fathomless. There is no end to compassion. It is limitless. And the more we are that, in fact, the world will be a better place, in countless domains.

 

Again, I'd argue that no matter how One feels with whatever, it doesn't change a damn thing except one's personal life.

Negative. What affect you on this level, spills out to everyone around you. Your entire outlook, attitudes, and behaviors are changed for the better. As you become more aware of others through this emptying of yourself into Compassion itself, that touches everyone in waves and waves moving outward. Absolutely.

 

To me, this stuff only matters while we are alive and it is very personal. Any attempt to categorize or define one's personal spirituality immediately lessens its value because it encourages labeling others as less enlightened, bringing one back to dualistic thinking.

I agree we need to be careful not to egotistically rank people spiritually. That's not, very spiritual. One of my personal 'lessons' that came to me while practicing a walking meditation some time ago was a simple phrase that came from within me to myself, "The path of non-judgment is the path of compassion". I have learned a lot from that. As I learn to set aside things like comparisons, rankings, and the like, no matter what area of life that touches, it opens me to see people who they are, behind their own masks. The result of this in fact makes me much more cognizant of others, more appreciative and valuing them as living souls, so to speak. There is no judgment in compassion.

 

Each person's journey is unique and we all must walk our own path whether it be through woo, Oneness, spirit, materialism, or nothing.

Yes, I agree.

 

We all end up at the same place, and the only thing that is affected by spirituality is one's own happiness.

I disagree. The whole world is affected.

 

Very good questions, and I hoped I offered some reasonable responses for you.

[Antlerman]

I guess I'm seeing my process, and BP's, and Florduh's, and everybody else's as parallel tracks and not as one big long track where one person is further along than everybody else or anybody's lagging behind.

You are all exactly where you need to be, as am I. I won't be here tomorrow, but now is where I need to be.

 

Plus, we need to be cognizant of continuing to pursue our growth, and not be simply stuck in a rut. Ruts are not good for our movement. When healthy skepticism devolves into cynicism, that's the beginning of a rut.