Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread based on reading discussion in my own about the idea of 'God' and many other threads about trying to explain so many aspects of human experiences which defy conventional explanations. Ideas of 'magic' arose for explanations and even the term magic is context basis. In particular, the new atheist writer, Richard Dawkins, wrote a book, 'The Magic of Reality', which sees magic in the perception of nature rather than as in the idea of the 'supernatural'

I also read a book by the biologist Lyall Watson, 'Supernature', which sees aspects of experience which cannot be explained as related to aspects of nature which goes beyond conventional explanations, such as extrasensory experiences. This is so different from some spiritual perspectives which speak of disembodied spirits and a 'God' to fill in the gaps.

I am not trying to dismiss the idea of 'God' because it may be about trying to keep a wider open mind to the unknown and inexplicable. However, it may be important to hold onto reason in thinking, such as in David Hume's query and attempts to hold on to rationality in thinking about the nature of miracles. Similarly, there are many different ways of thinking about life after death and the resurrection of Jesus and the dead. To what extent is the idea dependent on the idea of ethereal bodies or going beyond the ideas and understanding of the laws of nature?

How much is tangled logic of the literal and the symbolic? It is a complex area, and as far as I can see a pretty complex area of philosophy, especially in the context of the debate between materialism and idealism, which may be present in many worldviews, including Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, the literal and the symbolic come into play in the original tension between the Christian Church and Gnostic perspectives.
As I understand there is also a tension between materialism and idealism in Buddhism, and Eastern perspectives, such as Hinduism raise interesting questions about the nature of reality.

It is an extremely complex area and I find Carl Jung's juxtaposition of different ideas important, especially the idea of synchronicity for seeing meaningful connections in experiences. So, in this thread I am raising questions about what is considered to be 'supernatural', witn a view to thinking of experiences which seem to defy conventional logic and ideas of 'nature'. To what extent are ideas of nature too restrictive? What do the religious explanations capture, which gets left out of the philosophy of naturalism? How may both ideas of religion and science be demystified? Also, how much is about 'out there' metaphysics and human beings' search to make sense of the nature of 'reality'?

[Shamim026]

Nice experience keep writing it

[Stoppelmann]

I am writing this thread based on reading discussion in my own about the idea of 'God' and many other threads about trying to explain so many aspects of human experiences which defy conventional explanations. Ideas of 'magic' arose for explanations and even the term magic is context basis. In particular, the new atheist writer, Richard Dawkins, wrote a book, 'The Magic of Reality', which sees magic in the perception of nature rather than as in the idea of the 'supernatural'

I also read a book by the biologist Lyall Watson, 'Supernature', which sees aspects of experience which cannot be explained as related to aspects of nature which goes beyond conventional explanations, such as extrasensory experiences. This is so different from some spiritual perspectives which speak of disembodied spirits and a 'God' to fill in the gaps.

I see the “supernatural” as things that we can’t understand, and the natural as those we can. The supernatural belongs in the realm of imagination, not because they are just “imagined” but because it is our imagination that attempts to identify aspects of an experience. It is also where mythology and legend initially came from, where experience remained inexplicable and so people tried to describe the event as best they could, using archetypes and interpretations already available to them. However, as we can see in the many replies of sceptics on this site, this enchanted experience is reduced to another fact of life, with which it isn’t always identical, with hallucination, sensory illusion, weak mindedness and falsehoods.

The mystical experience as well as in some cases of NDEs, which are certainly processed by the same brain that can be deceived, and therefore suspect, have another aspect which sceptics often overlook, disinterested as they often are. It is the life-changing result of the experience that is so fascinating, especially in very sober, thoughtful people, some of which just haven’t got the vocabulary to even approach giving a reasonable description of what they have experienced. Obviously, there are those who use such stories to give themselves some colour, but when their “experience” has no affect on the lives, except to wallow in it, they should be differentiated from the others, where profound changes are made.

I am not trying to dismiss the idea of 'God' because it may be about trying to keep a wider open mind to the unknown and inexplicable. However, it may be important to hold onto reason in thinking, such as in David Hume's query and attempts to hold on to rationality in thinking about the nature of miracles. Similarly, there are many different ways of thinking about life after death and the resurrection of Jesus and the dead. To what extent is the idea dependent on the idea of ethereal bodies or going beyond the ideas and understanding of the laws of nature?

I agree with you that keeping an open mind is the best approach, because it is often a dogmatic attitude that closes any chance of seeing long-standing ideas from a different angle. It does have the “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them,” aspect, and it is very often the step back that has delivered the understanding that enabled us to engage with ideas after a long struggle. As I have previously said, it was in appropriating Buddhist and Vedanta practices that gave me a new perspective of Christianity. I think the same approach can help us with miracles and resurrection, which are obviously a problem for our scientific focus.

How much is tangled logic of the literal and the symbolic? It is a complex area, and as far as I can see a pretty complex area of philosophy, especially in the context of the debate between materialism and idealism, which may be present in many worldviews, including Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, the literal and the symbolic come into play in the original tension between the Christian Church and Gnostic perspectives.
As I understand there is also a tension between materialism and idealism in Buddhism, and Eastern perspectives, such as Hinduism raise interesting questions about the nature of reality.

Like it or not, we are still influenced by the prejudice that colonialists brought back from the Far East, whether in their interpretations of, or their disrespect for scriptures, customs, and traditions. There is, as well, church teaching that sought to eradicate anything that didn’t align itself with the accepted dogma, and which is still found in some terminology. We can’t simply assume we have shaken it off, just because we declare ourselves to be agnostic or atheist. Symbols, metaphors, allegories, and similes are an integral part of language, which we often use without thinking about them, and literal interpretations may be useful to “go along” with the story, and experience thereby what those stories are trying to impart, although we then need to step back again. It is strange to hear scepsis about this from time to time from people enthralled by a movie, or caught up in a melody or a song.

It is an extremely complex area and I find Carl Jung's juxtaposition of different ideas important, especially the idea of synchronicity for seeing meaningful connections in experiences. So, in this thread I am raising questions about what is considered to be 'supernatural', witn a view to thinking of experiences which seem to defy conventional logic and ideas of 'nature'. To what extent are ideas of nature too restrictive? What do the religious explanations capture, which gets left out of the philosophy of naturalism? How may both ideas of religion and science be demystified? Also, how much is about 'out there' metaphysics and human beings' search to make sense of the nature of 'reality'?

Carl Jung is a good example due to his own mystical experiences, which he kept apart from his attempts to use science to understand our perceptions and concepts. Concepts of nature suffer often under the aspect of utilisation, or what something is “for.” But it also suffers under the dissection that goes on in our minds, and in laboratories, whereby we separate the components and miss the whole. An experience my father gave me when in Malaya as a child was overlooking a stretch of jungle for about five minutes in silence and experiencing the sounds of all the animals rise in quadrophonic sound, asked the question, “why didn’t you hear that before?” Our senses are often focused on other things and suddenly detect an area of reality that seems to jump out at us.

It was when I started mindfulness meditation, learnt about “beginners mind” and started practising putting my assumptions aside that I discovered another side of reality, and being in an area where I was nursing aged and dying people, I sensed what some people call the aura, or felt an emanation of a dying person leaving the body. Can I be sure? Of course not, but my dealings with death took on a mystical aspect that my colleagues noticed, and I was often called to people who were suffering terribly with their approaching death and many times able to soothe them. Or it became noticed that I was often the person who was last in the room before people died. Synchronicity? Probably, but does that take away the fact that people started to rely on my presence? Of course, this stopped being so regular when I was no longer nursing, but I was still called in as a nursing manager to dying people, and often it was said that it had the desired effect.

These experiences are not something that anyone can prove, and certainly they became anecdotal and overinterpreted. However, at that time I was called to hold devotions at the beginning of staff meetings and they were strangely accepted, despite the normal air of scepticism around spiritual questions (especially here in Europe), and I was engaged in conversations about what I had said. The acceptance was strange even for me, and I met one priest who had a similar effect on me, which I couldn’t explain either. What I am trying to say is that we are not perfect, have weaknesses, struggle with what we encounter (especially in medicine), but find thoughts in religion that can help us with that. I am convinced that this is what religion is for, despite my embracing historical criticism, and being schooled enough in psychology to know how we can delude ourselves. It is just that we tend to overplay the hand we’re holding, which becomes apparent to everybody looking on.

One last aspect that I would like to mention is that of introversion and extroversion, which has, I feel, a big influence on the readiness, preparedness, or even opportunity for so-called “supernatural” experiences. Some are deeply fearful after such experiences, some are just confused, and others see something profound. We should look further and not just push it away.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread based on reading discussion in my own about the idea of 'God' and many other threads about trying to explain so many aspects of human experiences which defy conventional explanations. Ideas of 'magic' arose for explanations and even the term magic is context basis. In particular, the new atheist writer, Richard Dawkins, wrote a book, 'The Magic of Reality', which sees magic in the perception of nature rather than as in the idea of the 'supernatural'

I also read a book by the biologist Lyall Watson, 'Supernature', which sees aspects of experience which cannot be explained as related to aspects of nature which goes beyond conventional explanations, such as extrasensory experiences. This is so different from some spiritual perspectives which speak of disembodied spirits and a 'God' to fill in the gaps.

I see the “supernatural” as things that we can’t understand, and the natural as those we can. The supernatural belongs in the realm of imagination, not because they are just “imagined” but because it is our imagination that attempts to identify aspects of an experience. It is also where mythology and legend initially came from, where experience remained inexplicable and so people tried to describe the event as best they could, using archetypes and interpretations already available to them. However, as we can see in the many replies of sceptics on this site, this enchanted experience is reduced to another fact of life, with which it isn’t always identical, with hallucination, sensory illusion, weak mindedness and falsehoods.

The mystical experience as well as in some cases of NDEs, which are certainly processed by the same brain that can be deceived, and therefore suspect, have another aspect which sceptics often overlook, disinterested as they often are. It is the life-changing result of the experience that is so fascinating, especially in very sober, thoughtful people, some of which just haven’t got the vocabulary to even approach giving a reasonable description of what they have experienced. Obviously, there are those who use such stories to give themselves some colour, but when their “experience” has no affect on the lives, except to wallow in it, they should be differentiated from the others, where profound changes are made.

I am not trying to dismiss the idea of 'God' because it may be about trying to keep a wider open mind to the unknown and inexplicable. However, it may be important to hold onto reason in thinking, such as in David Hume's query and attempts to hold on to rationality in thinking about the nature of miracles. Similarly, there are many different ways of thinking about life after death and the resurrection of Jesus and the dead. To what extent is the idea dependent on the idea of ethereal bodies or going beyond the ideas and understanding of the laws of nature?

I agree with you that keeping an open mind is the best approach, because it is often a dogmatic attitude that closes any chance of seeing long-standing ideas from a different angle. It does have the “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them,” aspect, and it is very often the step back that has delivered the understanding that enabled us to engage with ideas after a long struggle. As I have previously said, it was in appropriating Buddhist and Vedanta practices that gave me a new perspective of Christianity. I think the same approach can help us with miracles and resurrection, which are obviously a problem for our scientific focus.

How much is tangled logic of the literal and the symbolic? It is a complex area, and as far as I can see a pretty complex area of philosophy, especially in the context of the debate between materialism and idealism, which may be present in many worldviews, including Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, the literal and the symbolic come into play in the original tension between the Christian Church and Gnostic perspectives.
As I understand there is also a tension between materialism and idealism in Buddhism, and Eastern perspectives, such as Hinduism raise interesting questions about the nature of reality.

Like it or not, we are still influenced by the prejudice that colonialists brought back from the Far East, whether in their interpretations of, or their disrespect for scriptures, customs, and traditions. There is, as well, church teaching that sought to eradicate anything that didn’t align itself with the accepted dogma, and which is still found in some terminology. We can’t simply assume we have shaken it off, just because we declare ourselves to be agnostic or atheist. Symbols, metaphors, allegories, and similes are an integral part of language, which we often use without thinking about them, and literal interpretations may be useful to “go along” with the story, and experience thereby what those stories are trying to impart, although we then need to step back again. It is strange to hear scepsis about this from time to time from people enthralled by a movie, or caught up in a melody or a song.

It is an extremely complex area and I find Carl Jung's juxtaposition of different ideas important, especially the idea of synchronicity for seeing meaningful connections in experiences. So, in this thread I am raising questions about what is considered to be 'supernatural', witn a view to thinking of experiences which seem to defy conventional logic and ideas of 'nature'. To what extent are ideas of nature too restrictive? What do the religious explanations capture, which gets left out of the philosophy of naturalism? How may both ideas of religion and science be demystified? Also, how much is about 'out there' metaphysics and human beings' search to make sense of the nature of 'reality'?

Carl Jung is a good example due to his own mystical experiences, which he kept apart from his attempts to use science to understand our perceptions and concepts. Concepts of nature suffer often under the aspect of utilisation, or what something is “for.” But it also suffers under the dissection that goes on in our minds, and in laboratories, whereby we separate the components and miss the whole. An experience my father gave me when in Malaya as a child was overlooking a stretch of jungle for about five minutes in silence and experiencing the sounds of all the animals rise in quadrophonic sound, asked the question, “why didn’t you hear that before?” Our senses are often focused on other things and suddenly detect an area of reality that seems to jump out at us.

It was when I started mindfulness meditation, learnt about “beginners mind” and started practising putting my assumptions aside that I discovered another side of reality, and being in an area where I was nursing aged and dying people, I sensed what some people call the aura, or felt an emanation of a dying person leaving the body. Can I be sure? Of course not, but my dealings with death took on a mystical aspect that my colleagues noticed, and I was often called to people who were suffering terribly with their approaching death and many times able to soothe them. Or it became noticed that I was often the person who was last in the room before people died. Synchronicity? Probably, but does that take away the fact that people started to rely on my presence? Of course, this stopped being so regular when I was no longer nursing, but I was still called in as a nursing manager to dying people, and often it was said that it had the desired effect.

These experiences are not something that anyone can prove, and certainly they became anecdotal and overinterpreted. However, at that time I was called to hold devotions at the beginning of staff meetings and they were strangely accepted, despite the normal air of scepticism around spiritual questions (especially here in Europe), and I was engaged in conversations about what I had said. The acceptance was strange even for me, and I met one priest who had a similar effect on me, which I couldn’t explain either. What I am trying to say is that we are not perfect, have weaknesses, struggle with what we encounter (especially in medicine), but find thoughts in religion that can help us with that. I am convinced that this is what religion is for, despite my embracing historical criticism, and being schooled enough in psychology to know how we can delude ourselves. It is just that we tend to overplay the hand we’re holding, which becomes apparent to everybody looking on.

One last aspect that I would like to mention is that of introversion and extroversion, which has, I feel, a big influence on the readiness, preparedness, or even opportunity for so-called “supernatural” experiences. Some are deeply fearful after such experiences, some are just confused, and others see something profound. We should look further and not just push it away.

Thanks for your detailed reply and you appear to understand the topic of unusual experiences which I am attempting to explore. I had many psychic experiences as a teenager, often of a disturbing nature when I was a teenager, and some beyond this. That was when I began reading Carl Jung seriously because it seemed the most useful for thinking about, especially due to his own psychic and dream experiences which he wrote about in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.' I find his idea of synchronicity particularly helpful because it is about 'meaningful coincidences' and he sees such extrasensory perception as being about being able to tune into patterns in the understanding of 'reality'.

It was this aspect of life which probably stopped me from becoming an atheist and a materialist. That is not to say that I think all experiences, such as near death and out of body experiences can be taken at face value. It is hard to know what they represent. I have had some out of body experiences on the borderline of sleep, in which I am flying around my room and know that my body is in bed. However, I am not necessarily interpreting such experiences to mean that I have really got out of my body literally. I keep an open mind as to what they represent, just as I do about people who describe having near death experiences.

It is in this context, that I try to think about the religious experiences in the widest possible way. I find The Bible extremely difficult to interpret because it is hard to know how much is based on myth and what really happened. I don't know how to interpret the account of Jesus's resurrection. If anything, I am inclined to think that something extraordinary did happen, whether or not Jesus was raised as a physical or spiritual body. St Paul's interpretation does seem to suggest a spiritual body. This would make sense in connection with the passage about The Transfiguration, in which an altered state of consciousness appears to have taken place.

I also read in the esoteric traditions, including theosophy, Rudolf Steiner and ideas about the kundalini lifeforce by Gopi Krishna. It is possible to get extremely carried away with such ideas. You mention mindfulness meditation and this is probably important to stay grounded in the sensory aspects. It is also worth thinking about all systems of thought critically, which is where a foundation in philosophy is important too. My own approach is, like yours, one of wishing to keep an open mind about the many possibilities in the understanding of 'reality', including ideas in Eastern and Western schools of thought. I also find the approach of transpersonal psychology and philosophy, about transformations of consciousness to be particularly inspirational.

[Stoppelmann]

Thanks for your detailed reply and you appear to understand the topic of unusual experiences which I am attempting to explore. I had many psychic experiences as a teenager, often of a disturbing nature when I was a teenager, and some beyond this. That was when I began reading Carl Jung seriously because it seemed the most useful for thinking about, especially due to his own psychic and dream experiences which he wrote about in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.' I find his idea of synchronicity particularly helpful because it is about 'meaningful coincidences' and he sees such extrasensory perception as being about being able to tune into patterns in the understanding of 'reality'.

Yes, that book help me, many years later in my life than in yours, to understand what had been going on a little better. I wouldn’t describe my experiences as a child as psychic, they were more like empathic flooding, which followed me into incredibly vivid dreams and daydreams of the kind that adults called “fantasies,” although they were real to me. I actually played truant from school to find a corner to write them down, as incoherent as they were at that time, borrowing my vocabulary from unsuitable sources and consequently misunderstood – but nobody came to the rescue.

Later in life I experienced synchronicity in many situations, especially in the harmony I experienced with my wife. We tend to speak the things that the other is thinking, but rather than seeing us as clairvoyant, we understand that we are “in tune” with each other and the flow of events surrounding us. It often happened at work in the nursing situation, and I must confess I was overly enthralled with “my” ability, rather than soberly accept that this being attuned is what is missing in much of our interactions, and finding it is a rediscovery of normalcy, rather than “my” talent.

It was this aspect of life which probably stopped me from becoming an atheist and a materialist. That is not to say that I think all experiences, such as near death and out of body experiences can be taken at face value. It is hard to know what they represent. I have had some out of body experiences on the borderline of sleep, in which I am flying around my room and know that my body is in bed. However, I am not necessarily interpreting such experiences to mean that I have really got out of my body literally. I keep an open mind as to what they represent, just as I do about people who describe having near death experiences.

Yes, I remember those at between eight and ten-years-old, but through a sleeping house, and in such detail that it worried my mother when I spoke to her about it. It passed though and other experiences took over, and I was so keen to tell my mother about them that she repeatedly warned me not to tell anyone, for fear I would be “taken away.” It must have been difficult for her, and when I spoke to her after reaching adulthood, she just waved it away, and said some things are better off forgotten. These are not uncommon amongst children, and when they occur at NDEs, they sound vaguely familiar, but I’m still not sure what they are telling us, although we all have our theories.

It is in this context, that I try to think about the religious experiences in the widest possible way. I find The Bible extremely difficult to interpret because it is hard to know how much is based on myth and what really happened. I don't know how to interpret the account of Jesus's resurrection. If anything, I am inclined to think that something extraordinary did happen, whether or not Jesus was raised as a physical or spiritual body. St Paul's interpretation does seem to suggest a spiritual body. This would make sense in connection with the passage about The Transfiguration, in which an altered state of consciousness appears to have taken place.

You can look at it that way, but you can also see it as a literary method, which sees the transfiguration as the climax of a life in a tragedy, after which everything runs (literally) downhill to death. Equally, the resurrection could indicate the presence of the cosmic consciousness, in which “we live and move and have our being” as Paul said, or our being one with God, and therefore eternal. Jesus tells people to pray in their chamber and close the door on the outside world and be at-oned with God in secret. His beatitudes say that appearances deceive us, that the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted because of righteousness, are all blessed. They appear to be victims of abuse and oppression, but “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I also read in the esoteric traditions, including theosophy, Rudolf Steiner and ideas about the kundalini lifeforce by Gopi Krishna. It is possible to get extremely carried away with such ideas. You mention mindfulness meditation and this is probably important to stay grounded in the sensory aspects. It is also worth thinking about all systems of thought critically, which is where a foundation in philosophy is important too. My own approach is, like yours, one of wishing to keep an open mind about the many possibilities in the understanding of 'reality', including ideas in Eastern and Western schools of thought. I also find the approach of transpersonal psychology and philosophy, about transformations of consciousness to be particularly inspirational.

Mindfulness is not only being grounded in awareness, but also being attuned to what is happening, being attentive and fully present, being aware of where we are and what we are doing, and at the same time not being overly reactive or overwhelmed by what is happening around us. But I see we have much in common, which is good to know.

[Belindi]

We don't confuse paranormal events with supernatural events. All events that are presumed to be events when supernature infiltrating nature are actually paranormal events.

Paranormal events should be subjected to scientific (paraspychological) scrutiny before they can be considered to be supernatural.

Even the RC Church will not recognise a miracle unless and until the event in question has been thoroughly examined.

[Fanman]

We can attempt to qualify and quantify what is supernatural. But the irony is that it can only be recognised where there is a lack of human understanding. Where rationality ends, the supernatural begins.

[JackDaydream]

We don't confuse paranormal events with supernatural events. All events that are presumed to be events when supernature infiltrating nature are actually paranormal events.

Paranormal events should be subjected to scientific (paraspychological) scrutiny before they can be considered to be supernatural.

Even the RC Church will not recognise a miracle unless and until the event in question has been thoroughly examined.

After I had written the outpost I began to wonder whether I should have used the term paranormal or what difference would it have made to my question. I admit that I am a little confused about the distinction between the two terms. Going back to before my time of having premonitions as a teenager I can remember stumbling across a section in libraries which seemed to use the terms paranormal, psychic and even 'occult'. I found it interesting but based on my own Catholicism felt that I probably not read on such 'forbidden' thinking, although I later read Colin Wilson's books on the topic. But, my initial understanding was that the paranormal was the occult or 'left hand path'.

Having cast it aside, I had a number of premonitions of people's deaths a short while before they died, during sixth form mainly. One was of my headmaster and a few were of people I only knew very casually. When I spoke to people I knew they didn't seem to be able to explain it and I even worried that it was my fault that the people were dying. I wouldn't know whether to call these paranormal experiences and I didn't find looking at parapsychology to be particularly helpful. I was fortunate to find Jung's writings and he probably blurs the distinction between the paranormal and supernatural.

With regard to the Catholic Church the one area of the 'supernatural' which is particularly interesting is that of the healings of Lourdes, where there were reported visions and miracles. I do know some people who have been to Lourdes and they speak of having psychological.'healing' experiences but not physical miracles as such. I have come across some evangelical Christians who speak of having witnessed physical miracles, including exorcisms.

The whole area of unusual experiences from visionary experiences, prophetic dreams and miracles is on the boundaries between religious experience and parapsychology. I am not sure that it is has been looked at greatly by philosophers, except Hume on miracles, but it does raise questions about the nature of 'reality', especially in connection with the physical , 'mind' and 'spirit', 'magic' and 'the 'supernatural'. Many books on the matter, especially in the 'Mind, body and spirit' sections use the terms ambiguously. The other area in which they are sometimes discussed is in cultural anthropology. It is a big area, often met with scepticism, but it may be a neglected aspect of the philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion.

[JackDaydream]

Thanks for your detailed reply and you appear to understand the topic of unusual experiences which I am attempting to explore. I had many psychic experiences as a teenager, often of a disturbing nature when I was a teenager, and some beyond this. That was when I began reading Carl Jung seriously because it seemed the most useful for thinking about, especially due to his own psychic and dream experiences which he wrote about in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.' I find his idea of synchronicity particularly helpful because it is about 'meaningful coincidences' and he sees such extrasensory perception as being about being able to tune into patterns in the understanding of 'reality'.

Yes, that book help me, many years later in my life than in yours, to understand what had been going on a little better. I wouldn’t describe my experiences as a child as psychic, they were more like empathic flooding, which followed me into incredibly vivid dreams and daydreams of the kind that adults called “fantasies,” although they were real to me. I actually played truant from school to find a corner to write them down, as incoherent as they were at that time, borrowing my vocabulary from unsuitable sources and consequently misunderstood – but nobody came to the rescue.

Later in life I experienced synchronicity in many situations, especially in the harmony I experienced with my wife. We tend to speak the things that the other is thinking, but rather than seeing us as clairvoyant, we understand that we are “in tune” with each other and the flow of events surrounding us. It often happened at work in the nursing situation, and I must confess I was overly enthralled with “my” ability, rather than soberly accept that this being attuned is what is missing in much of our interactions, and finding it is a rediscovery of normalcy, rather than “my” talent.

It was this aspect of life which probably stopped me from becoming an atheist and a materialist. That is not to say that I think all experiences, such as near death and out of body experiences can be taken at face value. It is hard to know what they represent. I have had some out of body experiences on the borderline of sleep, in which I am flying around my room and know that my body is in bed. However, I am not necessarily interpreting such experiences to mean that I have really got out of my body literally. I keep an open mind as to what they represent, just as I do about people who describe having near death experiences.

Yes, I remember those at between eight and ten-years-old, but through a sleeping house, and in such detail that it worried my mother when I spoke to her about it. It passed though and other experiences took over, and I was so keen to tell my mother about them that she repeatedly warned me not to tell anyone, for fear I would be “taken away.” It must have been difficult for her, and when I spoke to her after reaching adulthood, she just waved it away, and said some things are better off forgotten. These are not uncommon amongst children, and when they occur at NDEs, they sound vaguely familiar, but I’m still not sure what they are telling us, although we all have our theories.

It is in this context, that I try to think about the religious experiences in the widest possible way. I find The Bible extremely difficult to interpret because it is hard to know how much is based on myth and what really happened. I don't know how to interpret the account of Jesus's resurrection. If anything, I am inclined to think that something extraordinary did happen, whether or not Jesus was raised as a physical or spiritual body. St Paul's interpretation does seem to suggest a spiritual body. This would make sense in connection with the passage about The Transfiguration, in which an altered state of consciousness appears to have taken place.

You can look at it that way, but you can also see it as a literary method, which sees the transfiguration as the climax of a life in a tragedy, after which everything runs (literally) downhill to death. Equally, the resurrection could indicate the presence of the cosmic consciousness, in which “we live and move and have our being” as Paul said, or our being one with God, and therefore eternal. Jesus tells people to pray in their chamber and close the door on the outside world and be at-oned with God in secret. His beatitudes say that appearances deceive us, that the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted because of righteousness, are all blessed. They appear to be victims of abuse and oppression, but “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I also read in the esoteric traditions, including theosophy, Rudolf Steiner and ideas about the kundalini lifeforce by Gopi Krishna. It is possible to get extremely carried away with such ideas. You mention mindfulness meditation and this is probably important to stay grounded in the sensory aspects. It is also worth thinking about all systems of thought critically, which is where a foundation in philosophy is important too. My own approach is, like yours, one of wishing to keep an open mind about the many possibilities in the understanding of 'reality', including ideas in Eastern and Western schools of thought. I also find the approach of transpersonal psychology and philosophy, about transformations of consciousness to be particularly inspirational.

Mindfulness is not only being grounded in awareness, but also being attuned to what is happening, being attentive and fully present, being aware of where we are and what we are doing, and at the same time not being overly reactive or overwhelmed by what is happening around us. But I see we have much in common, which is good to know.

A very interesting reply again and it does seem that you have experiences of synchronicity. One aspect which I have often is phoning someone and they say how strange it was because they were just thinking of phoning me. With premonitions, my own have never been great in enabling me to prevent something happening, but I have known a couple of people in nursing who felt an intuitive instinct to check on someone and found them in a dire situation, such as going into a diabetic coma, and being able to go to the person's aid.

It is interesting to think of Biblical Transfiguration account in relation to literary methods and also in relation to the idea of cosmic consciousness. I have read Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness', and it does seem that many people who were writers, such as William Blake and Walt Whitman, as well as those on a spiritual quest entered into heightened states of awareness. I tend to see Christianity, in it's more esoteric form, in such a way, probably in connection with the idea of enlightenment. I tend to see religious and spiritual development in such a way generally.

[JackDaydream]

We can attempt to qualify and quantify what is supernatural. But the irony is that it can only be recognised where there is a lack of human understanding. Where rationality ends, the supernatural begins.

The tension between 'rationality' and the 'supernatural' may be underplayed in philosophy as there is so much emphasis on rationality. This may leave out other aspects of human knowing, especially intuition and experiential aspects of life which defy conventional logic. Many people only experience life in the way described by the philosophy of realism, although, based on interaction which I have had with many diverse individuals, I have found that a lot do have experiences which they find 'unusual' of all kinds, which they often don't talk about. Such experiences may be psychic ones or even of encounters with spirit guides.

[Belindi]

The difference between a supernatural claim and a paranormal claim is that the former presumes the existence of supernature, while the latter presumes only nature and is agnostic about supernature.

Noun. supernature (countable and uncountable, plural supernatures) A nature transcending the usual constraints of the physical world. quotations ▼ (theology, philosophy) A supernatural realm beyond or apart from the physical world.

Paranormal
denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.
"a mystic who can prove he has paranormal powers"

[JackDaydream]

The difference between a supernatural claim and a paranormal claim is that the former presumes the existence of supernature, while the latter presumes only nature and is agnostic about supernature.

Noun. supernature (countable and uncountable, plural supernatures) A nature transcending the usual constraints of the physical world. quotations ▼ (theology, philosophy) A supernatural realm beyond or apart from the physical world.

Paranormal
denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.
"a mystic who can prove he has paranormal powers"

Thanks for clarifying the definitions because even though I had thought about the whole area, I had not stopped and questioned the different terms before, probably because I had juggled thinking in different disciplines. I also imagine that the reason why Jung, and I through reading Jung, don't sit clearly into the category of the supernatural or paranormal is through the idea of there being a collective unconscious.

In speaking of a collective unconscious there is an inbetween area where could be seen as inherent in nature or apart from it. Jung himself seems to juggle ideas about instinctual and natural aspects of the human psyche with ideas from Kantian metaphysics, as well as
some link to Platonism in the sense of the archetypal. It is here that it gets complicated as to what 'mind' itself is.

[Fanman]

We can attempt to qualify and quantify what is supernatural. But the irony is that it can only be recognised where there is a lack of human understanding. Where rationality ends, the supernatural begins.

The tension between 'rationality' and the 'supernatural' may be underplayed in philosophy as there is so much emphasis on rationality. This may leave out other aspects of human knowing, especially intuition and experiential aspects of life which defy conventional logic. Many people only experience life in the way described by the philosophy of realism, although, based on interaction which I have had with many diverse individuals, I have found that a lot do have experiences which they find 'unusual' of all kinds, which they often don't talk about. Such experiences may be psychic ones or even of encounters with spirit guides.

Well put, I feel a sense of accord with this; in philosophy (or how I have experienced it), there is a tendency to focus on the empirical - That is understandable because if people can show that what they believe, feel or experience; has a solid foundation, it provides them with a justification - feelings like intuition and experience; are rejected out of hand - In my view, intuition is a valid mode of understanding and even knowing.

Recently my intuition was screaming at me not to do something; I was on the verge of communicating that I would not be. I even wrote an email. But I decided to listen to my rational mind and went ahead. Things turned into a literal disaster, and of course, I said, I should have listened to my intuition. I’m sure that occurs in many individuals, and I took that as a validation of my intuition. I now pay more attention to my intuition.

Experience is how we learn and one of the main ways we communicate with the world around us. So I do not dismiss the experiential aspect of knowing.

[JackDaydream]

We can attempt to qualify and quantify what is supernatural. But the irony is that it can only be recognised where there is a lack of human understanding. Where rationality ends, the supernatural begins.

The tension between 'rationality' and the 'supernatural' may be underplayed in philosophy as there is so much emphasis on rationality. This may leave out other aspects of human knowing, especially intuition and experiential aspects of life which defy conventional logic. Many people only experience life in the way described by the philosophy of realism, although, based on interaction which I have had with many diverse individuals, I have found that a lot do have experiences which they find 'unusual' of all kinds, which they often don't talk about. Such experiences may be psychic ones or even of encounters with spirit guides.

Well put, I feel a sense of accord with this; in philosophy (or how I have experienced it), there is a tendency to focus on the empirical - That is understandable because if people can show that what they believe, feel or experience; has a solid foundation, it provides them with a justification - feelings like intuition and experience; are rejected out of hand - In my view, intuition is a valid mode of understanding and even knowing.

Recently my intuition was screaming at me not to do something; I was on the verge of communicating that I would not be. I even wrote an email. But I decided to listen to my rational mind and went ahead. Things turned into a literal disaster, and of course, I said, I should have listened to my intuition. I’m sure that occurs in many individuals, and I took that as a validation of my intuition. I now pay more attention to my intuition.

Experience is how we learn and one of the main ways we communicate with the world around us. So I do not dismiss the experiential aspect of knowing.

Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it

I can definitely relate to the idea of going against a sense of intuition in sending emails and saying things in the heat of the moment which don't seem intuitively right with disastrous consequences. It can be so easy to silence one's intuition in a foggy state of mind. Also, I often find that when I listen to what others advise rather trusting my own 'inner voice' this is inclined to happen more. If anything, reflection offers a space for discernment of intuition and giving value to the importance of the inner realm of the intuition as a valid aspect of experience and wisdom.

[Pattern-chaser]

Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it.

As your conversation turns in this direction — an interesting direction, IMO — I am wondering why neither of you has mentioned the subconscious, unconscious or nonconscious mind? [Or whatever we want to call it.]

Intuition emerges from the nonconscious mind, as I understand it. Its slight air of mystery reflects its outside-awareness source, I think. But it still represents the output — is that a good word for it? — of the greater part of our minds, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when it is sometimes more successful than our conscious minds are.

I suppose the only surprising thing is ... that we find all this surprising. We have a long history, I think, of ignoring the nonconscious mind, or pretending it doesn't exist, or that it is some kind of alien presence in our minds that we must always oppose, lest it overwhelm us. Freud didn't help with his monstrous and scary id... Fairy stories and nonsense, IMO.