I often find it hard to discuss with people who rely on personal experiences for justification of supernatural or paranormal beliefs. Because personal experiences are much like opinions, they are rather.. personal and perspective binding. Such experiences should not be exempted from skepticism.
Take for example an addict. He claims that after consuming drugs, he receives visions from his own personal version of god. But yet, we would naturally suspect that his intense euphoria is nothing more than drug induced. What if the light at the end of the tunnel is nothing more than the flourescent light in a surgical room?
Excerpt from atheism.about.com mail bag. All emphasis my own.
"As a matter of fact, people who have intense experiences should be especially careful about how they interpret them as well as what they claim about them. It's a known fact that people have a very poor track record when it comes to accurately reporting traumatic events that carry a lot of emotional intensity, like accidents or injuries. Why should we believe that a "near death experience" would be any different?
A second problem here is one that is also true of mystical experiences and the attempts by some to use them as justification for religious beliefs: how can a person claim to recognize God? What arguments or evidence, without resorting to question begging, can a person use to claim that whatever they experienced is necessarily that of the god they believe in? TL here, for example, claims to have never believed in god — so what basis for evaluation did he use to conclude that his experience was of God and not something else?
...
TL here doesn't seem to understand an important distinction: the truth of the existence of an experience is not the same as the truth of the interpretation of that experience. One can grant that TL had a very important, very profound, very intense experience that changed his life in a multitude of (good) ways. This does not, however, require agreeing that TL had an experience of "God," either in the orthodox Christian sense or in some personally defined sense. TL could be completely wrong in his interpretation of what he experienced without that affecting the truth of having had an experience.
I'm not quite sure why so many people feel to realize and appreciate this crucial distinction. It's one that they are able to make in other situations, but when it comes to "religious" or "mystical" experience, all common sense and skepticism go right out the window."
Read full article
Technorati Tags : atheism, personal experiences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had such a nice lunch today. The fish was delicious!
ReplyDeleteWait. I must be careful. My experience of the taste of the fish is not the same as my interpretation of my experience of the taste of the fish.
Maybe the fish sucked! :P
~~~~~~
Please, Bandit, do not even attempt to disagree with me. After all, your perception of the meaning of my above comment, as perceived by you as a series of letters and words on your computer screen, is in fact not the same as your interpretation of your perception of the meaning of my above comment.
Maybe you actually completely agree with me!
A more correct analogy would be;
ReplyDelete"Wait. I must be careful. My experience of the taste of the fish is not the same as my interpretation of my experience of the taste of the fish.
Maybe the fish is not a fish! :P"
And if we have difficulty coming to an agreement as to what a fish/魚/ikan/whatever is, only then a fish would not be a fish.
~~~~~~
Mr Wang, perhaps you're suggesting that the English language should not be taught. After all, we cannot rely on our interpretation of letters and words that we see. And maybe each time we read/write say/hear something, supernatural forces are transmitting our thoughts magically. Maybe.
Conceivably, a very young child or a desert nomad could come across his first fish, or first fish dish, without knowing what it is.
ReplyDeleteOr you could go on an exotic holiday and eat some exotic dish (eg deep fried tapir? steamed marmoset? roasted peccary?) without knowing what a tapir or a marmoset or peccary is.
This does not mean that a fish would not be a fish, or that tapirs, marmosets or peccaries do not exist.
Maybe i'm saying it wrong somewhere.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying a fish is not a fish, assuming we can agree on what a fish is, which i doubt non-desert nomads like you and me would have difficulty.
If someone has a dream about a leviathan speaking to him, then the next day he goes to the market. He points at a fish and says "Look! A baby leviathan! It told me where to find it in a dream and now that i've found the evidence, it is true. Leviathans that can jump and fly into the air to summon storms to drown ships, exists."
The experience for the guy is no doubt intense and seems real to him. But is it a fish or leviathan?
What i'm saying is a fish is not a leviathan.
What do we do when we encounter such claims? We remain skeptical, doubt, and question. Why the abandon when it comes to other/certain beliefs.
Merry Christmas Mr Wang, wishing you and your family well.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas to you, Bandit, and I hope you have a great 2006 ahead as well.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to point out a couple of things. Firstly, it's hardly a rule of thumb that (supposed or actual) paranormal / religious / mystical experiences are intense. In fact I think they could jolly well be subtle and quiet as well.
Secondly, the fact that any experience (any kind of experience) is intense does not in itself, (to me at least), suggest that the person's observations / perceptions are any more less likely to be accurate than in a non-intense experience - nor does it seem to me that there is any obvious reason that the person is more likely to misinterpret an intense experience, as opposed to a non-intense experience.
Sexual intercourse, for example, is or can be intense ... but I don't think the person would be prone to misunderstand what was happening. Similarly, say, people engaged in a sporting competition; or in fact, any kind of flow experience (referring to Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi's concept of flow here).
I cannot figure out the line of reasoning for experiences that are not intense to be classified as spiritual experience. It would clearly redefine my idea of what exactly spiritual experience is. Incidentally, whenever you ask someone why they think their interpretation of the experience is correct, they'll usually say "But it seems so real" (thus reaffirming the intensity of the experience but not giving supporting evidence that their interpretation is correct.) See last paragraph regarding "intense".
ReplyDeleteRegarding the second point, i won't be so acceptable of it. Intense experiences generate stronger feelings than non-intense experiences. Strong feelings are instrumental towards biasing. Think of it as three persons in a chess game. Assuming that their skill is about the same, the person watching the other two play the game can often spot mistakes more easily. Neutrality->Less emotions->Less bias
From your examples of sexual intercorse and competitive sports, your idea of intense seems to refer to cardiac intensive activities. There are also many intense experience which are not cardiac intensive. Like speaking in tongues when (in my personal opinion) under self hypnosis. The aftermath, while not quite heart pumping, is quite intense.
Ummm ... I guess you and I are working on quite a different understanding of spiritual experience. But I really don't see how intensity has anything to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThere are some people who would tell you that they feel God's presence with them all the time. Every day, wherever they go. That's a spiritual experience too (whether actual, or as you would probably say, imagined & false). But not intense.
And many other people would say that God sends them little signs, through small, seemingly trivial events in life, to guide them as to His will. All spiritual experiences, non-intense.
Another example: many people pray. Some people pray all the time. Many people would consider their prayer (especially deep prayer) as a spiritual experience. Many people, whatever their particular religion, will talk about how they, when praying, are actually "listening to the small little voice inside" which will guide them, give them strength, inspire them, show them the right thing to do etc. This could be an intense experience, but much more often, is not. In fact, for some people, it's more like an everyday experience. All these people would regard their praying as a spiritual experience.
Of course, you would say that they only THINK that they are hearing that small little voice inside. However, this shows that intensity has nothing to do with it. An experience could be spiritual or not spiritual, but in either case, it could be intense or non-intense. Intensity has nothing to do with it.
Also, my idea of intensity is not cardiac-intensive, even though the two examples I gave might suggest that. To give you an example of what could be an intense (but not cardiac-intensive) spiritual experience (actual or purported), you could take for example Prince Siddhartha's seven-week meditation under the Bodhi tree which led to his enlightenment. That's intense, but I don't think it was cardiac-intensive. In the physical sense, he was just sitting down.
Intense experiences may or may not trigger strong feelings. For example, climbing Mount Everest would probably be fairly regarded as an intense experience, yet because it takes such a long time, I don't think feelings would be particularly intense except, say, at danger points, or upon reaching the summit. Taking an exam can also be an intense experience (you concentrate very hard) but I don't think that the feelings are particularly intense and certainly I don't think that the intensity necessarily leads to more mistakes (on the contrary, if you concentrate well, you're more likely to score an A).
Your chess example is interesting. Did I ever tell you that I used to play chess competitively? Once upon a time, I was NUS captain and throughout secondary school and JC years, I picked up medals at the National schools level every year.
Now, in chess, something interesting happens. I know what you are describing, but when it arises it actually arises for another reason which you may not be aware of. What happens in chess is that there is a kind of "conversation" between the two players, such that they are so entirely focussed on reacting to each other that they both fail to notice a new element that has crept in.
For example, I see you have a weak pawn and so I attack it. You automatically react by defending it. My automatic line of thinking is to attack it again with another piece and your automatic line of thinking is to defend it again. What we both forgot is that the last few moves have left my rook undefended and you could have taken it.
Again, intensity has nothing to do with it. This could happen in a intense competitive game between you and I, but it could jolly well happen in a casual, relaxed, "for fun" game between you and I as we eat potato chips and drink Coke at the same time. It is in fact much more likely to occur in the 2nd context.
A third party sometimes spots the thing when the two parties don't. The reason is that he was never really listening into the "conversation" between the two players. The two players were "talking" about the pawn and forgot the rook. The bystander was never talking about the pawn and so noticed the rook.
By the way, apparently non-intense experiences can also trigger strong feelings. For example, road rage incidents. The fella cuts into your lane (no big deal in the overall story of your life) but you lose your temper and you overtake him and force him to stop and then you take out a spanner and smash his windscreen. Etc.
Watching an action-packed movie can also trigger strong feelings in you, but I don't think that the intensity of the movie is at all likely to make you falsely believe that Orcs are real or that the evil Nazguls really once flew in the sky.
Hmm.. That chess part sounds right. It seems the intensity is of a different kind. In the case of chess it would be intense concentration (described as chess conversation), not intense feelings. My bad.
ReplyDeleteI'll reply on the spiritual part though.
When people say they feel God's presence with them all the time, i would ask them what they meant by that. Though not always, but i suspect, usually the answer is that there is some feeling of happiness/contentment depending on the religion.
I'll reiterate that i do not think that their experience is imagined or false. They are definitely feeling something. What i do question, is the validity of attributing the experience to the spirituality of a specific belief (usually their own belief). Why wouldn't psychological explanations be adequate. To me, if a person thinks positive, naturally he/she would feel happier.
Regarding the little signs which people percieve as spiritual beings (not only God/gods) sending messages. I don't think you agree with me, but human beings are pattern recognition creatures. I'll provide an example.
In poker, we know that it is difficult to get a royal flush. The probability of getting a royal flush in the opening hand is around 1.5 out of a million. But if a player does indeed get a royal flush in the opening hand, he'll say "Wa, i'm so lucky, one in a million also can."
Conversely, if he gets a hand of 2, 6, 7, Q, K with the suite not even coming close to a flush, which means it is totally garbage, he would say, "Aiya, another garbage hand, why i so suay."
But each hand is an unique hand. The garbage hand is as unique as a royal flush. Which means the probability of getting that particular garbage hand is also around 1.5 out of a million. Just that it doesn't win the game.
Of course, given 52 cards, there are more variations of garbage hands than royal flushes. But because of game rules, the player is being biased to recognise a winning pattern as more improbable than the garbage pattern.
This example does correspond to how some theists' reason, that "to see a spiritual being's work, one must first believe." Which, to me, effectively translates into "To recognise patterns, one must have a set of bias."
And why couldn't some other God that a person didn believed in be sending him/her the little signs? (Though it seems to me that no one in Singapore could say that they think another god is not true without being seditious) To me, questions of spirituality has no answers without taking a leap of faith and abandoning rational thinking.
Why can't i take a leap of faith (accept Pascal's wager)? With almost every set of religious beliefs, there comes with it cycles, hierarchies, God/god/gods, which by neccessity of the definition of spiritual, is neither provable nor falsifiable. (Why do i get the feeling that you're going to talk about quantum physics again lol)
Um.. prayer is pretty lengthy to talk about. I'll give it a skip. But a quick note on me saying that they think they hear a voice. As mentioned earlier, i won't say that. I'll say: they think the voice they hear, is evidence for their beliefs.
Haha, i cannot talk about Prince Siddhartha leh.. wait i become nth seditious blogger..
I don't think the intensity of watching a movie is as strong as say.. haullucination?
Interesting, interesting. I'd just like to comment on one part of your response though:
ReplyDelete"I'll reiterate that i do not think that their experience is imagined or false. They are definitely feeling something. What i do question, is the validity of attributing the experience to the spirituality of a specific belief (usually their own belief). Why wouldn't psychological explanations be adequate."
I guess my response is that psychological explanations could be adequate, depending on your purposes. There are after all many ways to explain or describe the same thing, and all could be valid. For example, if we asked a doctor, a chef, a farmer and a botanist to talk about a tomato, I think we would probably hear quite different things. Which is not to say that any of them are wrong. It is just different ways to describe the same thing.
When you mention this:
".... validity of attributing the experience to the spirituality of a specific belief (usually their own belief)..."
it may really be just the person describing the experience in the way he knows best (ie according to the particular religion he has adopted). Thus, upon having a spiritual experience, a Buddhist would explain it in the Buddhist way; a Muslim would explain it in the Muslim way; a Christian would explain it in a Christian way. Just like a doctor, a chef, a farmer and a botanist would talk differently about a tomato.
But back to the psychological explanations. Actually I've always had the curious sense that many of the biggest names in psychology have been interested in investigating God. Except that it is politically incorrect for them to say so. So they don't. They try to stop just a little short. But somehow the nature of psychology leads them back again to the question of God.
Remember Abraham Maslow, his motivation theories and his hierarchy of needs? Go one step further into his works. Read about his theory of self-actualising people and his concept of "peak" or "transcendental" moments. He's actually talking about divine inspiration, isn't he? Here, try this and scroll down to the header "Peak Experiences". He's actually describing a mini-form of enlightenment. Compare it to this description of enlightenment by an Indian spiritual leader Osho (yes, I'm aware he was a highly controversial figure):
http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0015.htm
How about Carl Jung? He is like the father of modern psychology. But look at some of his biggest ideas: synchronicity principle; the collective unconscious; archetypes.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/ideas/jung.htm
Can you see the similarities and relationships?
Say, between the synchronicity principle and the idea of God/universe giving signs, or systems of divination (fortune telling etc)?
Say, between the collective unconscious and the Akashic record in Hinduism? Or an omnipotent non-physical entity that knows everything? (ie God).
Say, between archetypes and Tarot cards?
Even your earlier comment about how people who speak in tongues are just under self-hypnosis -
you may be interested to know that hypnosis is just one description of a certain phenomenon, and another description of the same phenomenon is meditation, and a 3rd description of the same phenomenon is prayer -
and whether you talk about hypnosis, meditation or prayer, in all three areas, there will be practitioners who will point you towards something extraordinary, spiritual that lies in these three areas.
I do know what you mean by pattern recognition. Two random events happen at the same time. The human being will tend to believe that they are somehow related. Eg black cat crossed my path today, then I met with an unlucky accident.
But what I suggest is that in any case, you give Jung a little more credit. Or benefit of the doubt. Surely he deserves it. After all, psychology would be nowhere today if not for him, and you wouldn't even think of using the term "psychological explanations".
Here is a more direct commentary on the connection of Jung's ideas on psychology, and the idea of God.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.friesian.com/jung.htm
"it may really be just the person describing the experience in the way he knows best (ie according to the particular religion he has adopted). Thus, upon having a spiritual experience, a Buddhist would explain it in the Buddhist way; a Muslim would explain it in the Muslim way; a Christian would explain it in a Christian way"
ReplyDeleteBut that would bring the logic to a full circle. I ask a theist why he/she believe in his/her beliefs, then they give personal experience as evidence and now the belief, the very thing i was questioning become instrumental in explaining the evidence..
I would have thought that self actualization in Maslow hierarchy of needs to refer to something like job satisfaction or the sort. And if you asked me, i don't think he was referring to spiritual transcendence when he said "Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."
Though, i would say, that same line could also be used by believers of spirituality to describe their spiritual experience.
Well, Bandit, the thing is, a tomato is still a tomato even if you and I describe it in different ways. So if a Muslim reports a spiritual experience, and then a Christian reports a spiritual experience, neither report may necessarily validate any specific teaching in the Quran or in the Bible, nor necessarily invalidate each other. However, both reports would point to the existence of God or of something spiritual, transcendental, paranormal (whatever word you want to use).
ReplyDeleteTo return to the tomato analogy, you could think of a doctor, a chef, a farmer and a botanist each talking about a tomato, and being overheard by a person who has never actually seen a tomato. Although the person has never seen a tomato himself, he can listen to the different accounts of what a tomato is about, and put a few things together, and justifiably accept that there is such a thing as a tomato.
On Maslow - the most interesting and important parts of his theory never gained that much publicity, as opposed to the rather basic parts of his theory. We have all heard about his hierarchy of needs - but many of us have not read much further than that about Maslow's research and ideas. Actually, Maslow was most interested in the top level of his triangle - the self-actualisation stage - and he also had his theory about what self-actualising individuals are like (the kind of characteristics, attributes they have etc).
In his original theory, he said that one attribute of self-actualising individuals is that they have all had "peak experiences" or "transcendental experiences". Later Maslow refined his theory to say that only some, not all, self-actualising individuals have had such experiences.
If you want to read about the relationship between Maslow's "transcendental experiences" and religious accounts of "divine inspiration" or "visions" or "revelations" - you could try this:
http://sandra.stahlman.com/maslow.html
Excerpt:
"Maslow states that the transcendent experiences occur universally, and they can be characterized as being of a theistic, supernatural, or non-theistic content. Very important with Maslow is the idea that the experience is as unique as the person experiencing it. Regardless of content, and how the experience is interpreted and used, Maslow points out that there are certain characteristics which are constant to what he has termed "peak-experiences," a term which encompasses the spectrum of mystical states of consciousness. Maslow prefers the term "peak-experience" because he wishes to secularize the experience, feeling it is necessary to define the experience as one that is natural and available without an organized religious context. However, this is not to say that religious context is unimportant. He comprehends the need for a framework of values with which to interpret and understand the experience. However, Maslow believes that since the peak-experience can be stimulated by non-religious settings and activities, the framework by which we interpret our experience must encompass everyday life - beyond the realm of "religion." Then, Maslow says, "Religion becomes...a state of mind achievable in almost any activity of life, if this activity is raised to a suitable level of perfection."
Well, I can't really tell you everything that I've read about these kinds of topics (you probably can tell that I've delved in some depth) but I have this personal theory that folks like Buddha basically had a peak experience except that they were able to stay in it more or less permanently. You get these kinds of folks every now and then (Osho is a modern example; Jesus is an older example) because essentially they are genetic freaks, inherently predisposed to making this kind of breakthrough. Just like Mozart, Einstein etc were also predisposed in their own way.
If you are a fan of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory, you might explain it like this. There are seven or eight kinds of specific intelligences -
bodily-kinesthetic;
musical;
logical/mathematical; intrapersonal;
interpersonal;
visuo-spatial;
etc.
When, by random quirk, you get an individual with a freakishly high musical intelligence, you get a potential Mozart. When you get an individual with a freakishly high logical/mathematical intelligence, you get a potential Einstein. When you get an individual with a freakishly high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, you get a potential Diego Maradona or Nadia Comaneci.
And when you get an individual with a freakishly high intrapersonal intelligence, you get a potential .... Jesus or Osho.
All of them are genetic freaks.
I oversimplify, of course, but you get the basic drift. You'll see that Maslow's peak experiences are basically an altered state of consciousness. Maslow's research shows that in the self-actualising individuals he studied, the experience doesn't last very long (fifteen minutes? half an hour? a day?) - but it is significant and their memory of it often shapes their behaviour for decades to come (eg a scientist has a peak experience during which he perceives something mystical and spiritual about the nature of suffering and pain and life and death, and because of that, he resolves to devote the rest of his life to finding a cure for cancer. That's the nature of the kind of experience Maslow is talking about).
Of course, the thing is that individuals like Osho and Buddha are able to stay more or less permanently within their altered state of consciousness.
In the same way, Mozart stays more or less permanently in a state of consciousness where musical awareness is massively heightened. Whereas lesser musicians get that way only very occasionally (inspiration!), or otherwise only if they are on drugs. :P
I'll leave you now, to digest ...
"So if a Muslim reports a spiritual experience, and then a Christian reports a spiritual experience, neither report may necessarily validate any specific teaching in the Quran or in the Bible, nor necessarily invalidate each other. However, both reports would point to the existence of God or of something spiritual, transcendental, paranormal (whatever word you want to use)."
ReplyDeleteThat would be my point exactly (Though not very evident in the content of the particular post). Even if the spiritual experiences were spiritual, it does not validate any specific teachings. That is to say, we might contend the existence of God or some spiritual being, but we can cannot determine any of the characteristics of such a being. Much less determine if such a being is in fact a moral being or an immoral being, or whether such a being is deserving of or even desires worship.
That is what i meant by "With almost every set of religious beliefs, there comes with it cycles, hierarchies, God/god/gods". Even if the soul or reincarnation exists, it could not validate a karmic cycle. (Um.. by the karmic cycle i was referring to the one i was taught, where good guys reincarnate as humans and bad guys reincarnate as animals or even plants)
(Note to anyone else following the conversation. What i have said is not seditious, read carefully and understand what is a theological discussion)
There's still the issue of, Muslim interpretes as a spiritual experience, and then a Christian interpretes as a spiritual experience, and in additional to all that, a skeptic interpretes it as a psychological or physiological experience.
I think you made a "conceptual" leap that was a little too broad here. The fact that a farmer, a chef and a botanist talk differently about a tomato does not mean that we would therefore not be able to determine any of the characteristics of a tomato. On the contrary, I think that we are possibly in a position to learn more about the nature of a tomato, if we listened to all the different accounts, rather than just confine ourselves to, say, the farmer.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I personally am actually quite interested in what different religions have to say. In fact I would be interested in any "peak experiences" or "transcendent experiences" reported by any self-actualising atheist, as well as, say, any accounts of or research into "spiritual" or "paranormal" experiences that comes about in a environment non-linked to any specific religion:
- eg modern yoga; past-life regression hypnosis; secular meditation; Silva Method visualisation; neurolinguistics programming; near-death experiences; possession cases; channelling; acupuncture; ghostly encounters; ESP etc etc.
These represent opportunities for me to gain a deeper understanding of my personal tomato. :)
Ummm .... I think your understanding of karma is a bit flawed. Perhaps more on this, this time, but I'd just like to comment on one aspect:
A common misunderstanding of karma (which you also displayed) is that it is something about how if you do good things, then good things will happen to you in your next life; and if you do bad things, then bad things will happen to you in your next life. This is a very superficial view of karma.
Actually, a more accurate description of karma is that whatever you do (or even think) has consequences. Those consequences lead to other consequences which in turn lead to other consequences and so forth.
It is not necessarily a "next life" thing. Whatever you do in this life also has consequences for you in this life. At the end of this life, things just continue as per usual, and in your next life, things carry on and you continue to experience the consequences of your past deeds and thoughts which have not "exhausted" themselves yet to a point of insignificance.
Although everything that happens to us (say, everything that happens to you today - including anything that's very important and anything that's very trivial) is a consequence of many, many other things you did in the past, you DO have a choice in your response. Christians call this "free will". In other words, suppose you were fired from your job today (as a karmic consequence of having been lazy and dishonest at work on many past occasions). You DO have a choice in your response to this event. For example, you can find a new job and continue behaving the way you behaved previously. Or you can find a new job and choose to behave differently. Either response will attract different consequences. And your life goes on, and you are faced with new karmic lessons. Where again you have to choose your responses.
And that, really, is why the Buddhists consider it a good thing to be born as a human being instead of as a dog or a cat. Not because there is anything necessarily unpleasant about a dog's or cat's existence. But simply that as a human, you have free will, and therefore vast potential ability to alter your karmic destiny, through your decisions on how to think and behave. This is possible only to a very small extent in animals, and probably impossible or almost impossible for the lesser life forms which are very un-intelligent. A cockroach, for example, operates mostly by instinct, not deliberate choice.
Karma is actually amoral. There is no "good" or "bad" about it. "Good" and "bad" are labels which we attach to our own experiences. In another school of thought, it is said that we are always exactly where we were meant to be, because all our past deeds, thoughts etc have brought us to the exact moment, the exact place, where we are. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, nothing happens by accident and there is a reason for everything.
For example, there are karmic reasons why Mr Wang stumbled on your blog months ago, and there are karmic reasons why you stumbled on mine. Because Mr Wang has free will, he could have chosen never to return to your blog; and because you have free will, you could also have chosen never to read Mr Wang's comments or never to respond. However, because karma is a perfect system, the consequences which led Mr Wang to your blog would then have created new circumstances to present Mr Wang with an opportunity to karmically fulfill whatever it was that he could have fulfilled here on your blog. Similarly, in your case, if you had chosen never to read Mr Wang's comments, the karmic system would then have somehow created a new set of circumstances in your life to present you with another opportunity, possibly in a very different context, to fulfill whatever it is that you could have fulfilled by reading Mr Wang's comments on your blog.
If you ever see any recurring kind of pattern in anyone's life, well, you may be seeing a karmic lesson being presented and represented. For example, X has no true friends. The reason is that he loves to backstab people. They find out after a while, and they stay away from him. So everywhere that X goes, he finds that he has no friends. This is the karmic consequence of his backstabbing behaviour. One day, if he resolves to stop backstabbing people, the karmic consequences will alter. He may have friends.
Of course, I am oversimplifying things. I have suggested to you a very straightforward mechanism - one cause (backstabbing) leading to one effect (no friends). In karmic reality, no effect has only one cause, and each effect itself may be the cause of many other different effects. But you get the idea.
I'll think about what you've said on karma. No comment from me for now : )
ReplyDeleteCheers to you, Lbandit.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point to you yet another important person in modern psychology whose work also led her to the question of God etc.
You probably have heard about the research into stages of grief. These are the stages that a terminally ill person passes through (and are also the stages which a person who is going to lose / has lost a loved one passes through). The research into these stages forms the fundamental basis on which counsellors, psychiatrists, hospice workers etc deal with (a) terminally ill patients and (b) persons suffering from psychological problems due to the loss of loved ones. In a nutshell, the stages of grief are:
Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
Anger (why is this happening to me?)
Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
Depression (I don't care anymore)
Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)
Anyway, this is quite an important area in the practice of psychiatry and it all originated from the work of Dr Elizabeth Kubler Ross. She's also one of those kinds of people with so many degrees, honorary degrees, professional qualifications etc etc that her certificates would cover several bedroom walls.
What will probably never become as well-known as her work on her stages of grief is her theories and research (and personal experiences) into God, the afterlife, the cosmic consciousness etc. But Of course, it is politically incorrect for a scientist like Kubler to talk about such things. Unlike Jung and Maslow, however, she didn't make any attempt to disguise the true nature of her works. I'll give you an excerpt from something she said in a film documentary about her life. Here she writes about THE mystical experience of her life. Certainly Maslow would have classified this as a peak experience - in fact, a very graphic, intense peak experience:
".... Soon an ominous, eerie feeling came over me, an awareness that I had gone too far in my out-of-body experience, and now I had to accept the consequences. I had a vague, inner foreboding that something very impactful was going to happen in that cabin. Then "it" happened - the most painful experience of my life. I literally had to experience what it felt to die a thousand times over: Over the next few hours, I experienced the deaths of each of the over 1,000 patients I hjad attended to up to that time. My body doubled up in excruciating physical pain. I could hardly breathe. As this was happening, I had total knowledge and awareness that I was out of the reach of the help of any human being. During the next few hours, I had only three momentary reprieves to catch my breath .... During the first reprieve, I begged for a shoulder to lean on. I literally expected a man's left shoulder to miraculously appear so I could put my head on it to help me bear the agony. In the same instant ... a firm but compassionate voice of a spirit guide simply stated, "It shall not be given."
... it goes on and on, and I am not going to type it all out , but it has the full works - visions, voices, ecstasy, etc. Essentially she was mystically given a very complete, intense experience of what it is like to die; except that she did not actually have to die.
Naturally, this experience led Kubler (who was still a fairly young doctor then) to devote the rest of her life to helping the dying, and researching the topic of death. And eventually of course, she became the world's expert on thanatology. There was no such thing as a "hospice" in any part of the world until Kubler invented it. That is how significant Kubler is, to modern medical practice and to the fields of psychiatry and counselling.
Perhaps you now can see the relationship between "peak experiences" and the "self-actualisation" theory that Maslow wrote about. Ordinary folks are motivated by the need for social acceptance, money, material needs etc. Self-actualising people are motivated by something far deeper. What often creates that "deeper" thing is a peak experience (which according to Maslow, many self-actualising individuals have had). In Kubler's case, and in psychological terms, her peak experience probably served to motivate her to spend the rest of her life helping the dying and their family, and doing research into the area.