SOTT > SOTT Focus

Comments on "The Afterlife"

(1/1)

Guest:
Insightful article, IMO. It stands to reason that when accepting a system of beliefs, we obviously want the ones that are closest to the truth and the nature of reality. If the coherence or lack thereof of a belief system to reality can be objectively verified beyond a shadow of a doubt (and not just because the scientific or any other establishment says it is), it all seems pretty straight-forward.

But what if a belief cannot be verified? As Henry See mentions, the case for reincarnation provides suggestive evidence. This type of evidence can fuel a belief system, but it is not proof. Hypotheses regarding the continuation of existence after physical death, to my knowledge, have never offered more than suggestive proofs of one type or another.

Although suggestive proofs can support a belief system, they are not strong enough to be the primary support. When objective proof eludes us, therefore, it is natural to seek other criteria to evaluate a given belief system. These are personal and subjective criteria, and differ from person to person.

I believe that the kind of internal criteria we use to evaluate a system such as the afterlife paradigm has a lot to say about who we are and where we are in the sense of inner development.

For example, two different people can believe that there is no afterlife. For one, such a belief can help them appreciate and value the life they have. Another, however, can fall into despair because "it's all pointless". Although these two may have the same belief, what may differ here is the WHY they believe in what they do. The first may choose this belief of no afterlife because it is functional, motivating and inspiring for them. The other may simply refuse to believe anything that official science denies.

A similar thing may occur with a belief in reincarnation. One individual may experience the effects of such a belief system as inspiring, motivating and funtional in their lives. Another may see it as a means to put off for tomorrow what you can do today. In other words, a more thoughtful individual views the belief system in terms of its usefulness in terms of the health of the psyche. A less thoughtful individual has other motives, such as adherence to authority, justifying personal weakness and/or fear, especially the latter.

These categories of motivation regarding choices in belief systems relate, in my opinion, to the the three stages of moral reasoning defined by Lawrence Kohlberg. Usually, when one adopts a belief system because it is inspiring and motivating the choice is one of conscience as that is described in the editorial.

So when dealing with beliefs where objective proof is not forthcoming, why that belief is held matters at least as much as the belief itself (if not more). Of course, if objective proof were to be available a truly sane person would be able to adapt to the truth without having to sacrifice conscience or integrity.

An individual, for example, who would NEED the lack of an afterlife to live in integrity, or who would NEED an afterlife to live in a healthy manner would have a dependency problem. Dependency is there when we suffer if the belief structure is threatened. A period of confusion and readaptation is natural, when beliefs are proven incomplete or wrong, but a refusal to adapt (when proof is undeniable of course) is a sign of psychosis.

Major changes in one's beliefs constitute reality-paradigm shifts (or transformations in how we view reality), and to accomodate any reality shift, the integrity of an individual needs to be independent of or at least self-sufficient with respect to the form of the belief that the individual has adopted.

Such self-sufficiency of personal integrity would probably be difficult for an individual in the first two stages of moral reasoning, but could also be difficult for an individual who seems to be in the third stage, but cannot maintain a reasoning conscience independent of the belief system adopted.

Unfortunately, because of such a lack of true self-sufficiency (based on a deep sense of integrity or true "I") many people resist even the possibility that their truth is not the WHOLE truth let alone the real truth. To them, a simple change in how they view the world implies a collapse of the world itself, and for some external collapse or disaster is even preferable to facing a reality different from what they thought it was.

I believe that the more mature degrees of the third level of moral reasoning presented in this editorial involve the personalization or grounding of abstract reasoning. In other words, what is abstract to others, to this person is concrete and concretely applicable. IMHO, the mature third level person actually has a different sense of what constitutes "personal interest" than others.

Thus, they do not need to resort to the concept of self-sacrifice or giving up personal interest in favour of the interests of others because they view exclusive personal interest as detrimental to their inner integrity, while real self interest involves affirmation of that integrity.

I believe such an individual may see their personal interests to serve the well being of others including themselves, or rather that the very definition of personal interest for them expands to include others instead of excluding others in favour of the self (seflishness) or the self in favour of others (self-sacrifice).

Psychopaths and pathocrats throughout history have revelled in pushing individuals with integrity to make that choice. If the victim chose self in favour of others he/she was deemed just as "bad" as the psychopaths. If they chose others at the expense of self they usually became martyrs or were otherwise disposed of.

The psychopath forces individuals into these either/or situations because what they cannot tolerate is the solution of "both", because that solution negates the purpose of their existence, to propagate entropy in society. It would, therefore, seem prudent to avoid this psychopathic trap wherever possible.

A comparison between the views of two diametrically opposed levels of moral reasoning can be observerd in this personal example:

I was discussing the social ramifications of the discovery of energy sources like cold fusion, that are clean, free and easily available, with some acquaintances. I pointed out that such a discovery would lead to a revolution in the quality of human life that we would all be rich. Instantly several people objected that this would be a "disaster". Their argument was that wealth is meaningless unless there are poor people, just as pleasure is meaningless unless others suffer.

I was taken aback at this, and moreso because I was the odd one in the group. These people were against research in alternative energy "if was going to come to THAT", i.e. prosperity for all without taxing planetary resources. Personally, THAT was the kind of society I would consider worthy of aspiration, while they thought it was hell. I felt a rift form with me on one side and them on the other. We could not understand each other, I each side of the rift really couldn't see why the other had the opposing view. They implied that they would tolerate my "philosophical eccentricities" but enough was enough, while I just figured I had landed in the asylum run by the loonies.

In conclusion, it seems objectively undeniable that we people form fundamentally different types, and on deep levels at that. How one relates to those beliefs that are not objectively verified may be an indicator as to the group where one "belongs".

joeshmoe:
Synchronicity!  I believe the work of Lawrence Kohlberg was studied by Wilber as well.  Heh.

Approaching Infinity:
Here's an expanded look at Kohlberg's stages (from my psych notes):

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment
Stage 2: Self-Interested Exchanges
Stage 3: Interpersonal Accord and Conformity
Stage 4: Law-and-Order Morality
Stage 5: Human-Rights and Social-Welfare Morality

Stages 1+2 = pre-conventional
Stages 3+4 = conventional
Stages 5 = post-contentional

In his study of males up to age 24 he found that at age 24 only around 8% reached stage 5.  56% were at stage 4, 34% at stage 3, 2% at stage 2, and 0% at 1.  In other words 100% were basing their morality on official culture.  Those in the post-conventional, while probably the best candidates for true "Conscience," were still only really espousing an egalitarian/western worldview.

Interestingly, these stages correlate with Bronfenbrenner's levels of social ecology:
1) self
2) immediate environment
3) relations of all immediate environments
4) society/institutions/etc
5) culture/values/etc

Stage 1 of Kohlberg's is a concern for the interests of 1 in Bronfenbrenner's, all the way up to 5.

3D Resident:
Note: I’m posting this message here because I couldn’t really find another forum which talks about “afterlife evidence”, and also because the Myers article which Henry commented on relates to the afterlife and evidence.

I think that any assessment of whether the afterlife may or may not exist most certainly needs to be framed by the question that P.Z. Myers asked in his article:


--- Quote ---Are we going to be ruled by reason and the weight of evidence, or are we going to choose to believe in that which makes us most comfortable and reinforces our prejudices?
--- End quote ---
Henry See also said that


--- Quote ---… no matter what decision one comes to, it [should] be reached through one's own efforts and research, not by blindly following the ideas of an authority, be it religious or scientific.
--- End quote ---
One researcher that comes to my mind immediately who I believe largely follows both of the above, is someone by the name of Victor Zammit. Zammit is (or was) a lawyer, but has devoted much of his time and effort to collecting evidence for the afterlife which would be more than satisfactory to “prove” the existence of the afterlife – or at least, something after death – in a court of law. Before his research, he was an atheist not at all unlike Ian McEwan.

What Zammit has done is similar to what has been done by Laura Knight-Jadczyk in that years of research has been conducted and he has used “vertical” and “horizontal” substantiation (that is, taking articles and data across space and time and assessing their consistency and agreement). Zammit has also been aware of the enormous suppression of any findings which have been highly suggestive of certain “paranormal” and “afterlife” phenomena. But like he says, it is the collective weight of all the areas of research spanning well over a hundred years which makes the case for the afterlife so compelling. Even if the afterlife, as he would understand it, is not conclusively proven in my opinion (but rather is extremely suggestive), it does point to the fact that the universe in which we find ourselves is ruled by anything but materialism, and that the idea of an afterlife does seem the best SINGLE hypothesis which can consistently explain ALL of the findings in all of the areas which have been studied. Zammit has suffered attacks just like many people who strive for the truth, however it must be stressed that the attacks don’t come close to what Signs has experienced (therefore what Signs is uncovering is obviously far more detrimental to the Powers That Be).

Henry See said that “while the evidence is suggestive, it cannot be considered proof”, in reference to reincarnation. And this is where Zammit differs. He has unfortunately taken on some rather dogmatic interpretations, suggesting that all of the evidence he has collected proves beyond a doubt that the afterlife exists – but evidence can never really PROVE anything; rather it can only SUGGEST. That said, the various evidence which has been collected over the decades from a whole range of completely different and independent sources is highly suggestive, to say the least.

Despite Zammit’s interpretive shortcomings, the most important thing about his methods is that they stem from the philosophy that scientific findings should come before any pre-existing belief system, and that if a scientific experiment clashes with one’s belief system, then that belief-system needs to be changed, not the scientific findings. Now this idea can become contentious, especially when one realises that scientific research can itself become corrupted and authoritarian, but Zammit, as mentioned above, is well aware of this type of corruption and has taken measures to ensure that the research he finds is confirmed by several totally different and independent sources.

While Zammit has collected some of the most compelling evidence which is highly suggestive of the afterlife hypothesis, covering some 17 different areas of enquiry (including reincarnation), I cannot support many of the ideas which come directly from him, rather than from his research. For instance, on his website, he frequently lets the idea of wishful thinking colour some of his commentary. The March 3rd edition of his site mentioned Gore Vidal stating that the U.S. was on its way to financial ruin and social disaster (which appears a very likely outcome based on the current data). However Zammit replied to this with:


--- Quote ---If people believe that and become consistently negative and defeatist, that could create negative vibrations in the U.S. psyche which could multiply on a national level.
--- End quote ---
In other words, he sincerely believes the “create your own reality” New Age doctrine.

The other major criticism of Zammit is that he is all too willing to support U.S. policies and believes that for the most part, the U.S. has done a good job in the “War on Terror”. This, and mainly this, is what makes his website (quite apart from his online book about the afterlife) so very hard to swallow, especially since he has done such a commendable job on collating afterlife evidence. Before the “War of Terror”, I found his site to be highly informative, but since the whole Iraq mess, I think he has shown his true colours and prejudices, so I visit that site far less than I once did. If only he could apply the same principles of not blindly following authority with regard to politics and society, as he does to afterlife research.

For those wanting to see what Victor Zammit is all about, you can visit his website at www.victorzammit.com.


Now moving onto something else: Those acquaintances of EsoQuest. What lovely people! I wonder how such people could be defined? Would you say they are Organic Portals, or psychopaths? I've not been aware of knowing such people before (although it would be in my best interest to know them better), but I have an inkling that I have indeed met many people who I'm sure would have expressed similar ideas about wealth and pleasure as those "friends" of yours. But when one looks at almost all of the governments worldwide, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that this is precisely the principle upon which they operate; that is, making the poor poorer, and making the rich richer. That more "average citizens" would think like this should therefore come as no surprise.

The idea that where one "belongs" can be deduced based on how one relates to non-objectively verified beliefs is a very interesting concept, and one which I've certainly pondered many times over the years when confronted by certain individuals. With the knowledge of Organic Portals, however, these ponderings have now taken on a whole new light. It certainly seems to be the case that some abstract ideas and concepts can assist in revealing a person's inherent nature, and thus the discussion of such concepts could indeed be another way to discover if someone is an Organic Portal.

Navigation

[0] Message Index