Federica wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:07 pmOK I've done that. I'm not seeing it in the list yet. Maybe it's moderated first.
Is this a to OB or a genuine mistake?
The answer is I don't know. But I don't monitor his FB page, and I have noticed that's where he reports these kind of things - what he's reading, what he's doing etc.
That was a genuine mistake - I doubt OB is still thinking at this point, rather imagining, inspiring, and intuiting
I see your post is up now, perhaps he will respond. Ben also had an interesting post on the article:
Ben wrote:Yes, this is all very interesting Bernardo, particularly your idea that in the out of body state we can only perceive what has previously been experienced. Some of the more profound NDEs do talk about travelling through starfields, past nebulae and galaxies: perhaps MAL’s own experiences?
Some might look instead to a hierarchy of dissociation: dimensions more subtle than ours; that we have a subtler “vehicle” – i.e. a subtler representation- which, after death, can be released from its ties to these grosser dimensions we normally inhabit. If so, then after death here, we would still have our subtle senses intact with our subtle “vehicle”.
But if that were true, one might argue, we might expect the subtler senses to only perceive the subtler world, not also the grosser world we normally experience. Otherwise, as you say, why the evolution of eardrum and retina? The answer could be that what really evolved here were only the grosser “representations” of eardrum and retina as we now experience them on the screen of perception: partial, dumbed-down imitations of the deeper, subtler sensorial apparatus beneath (for instance, some NDEs indicate that our subtler self has all-round vision).
If subtler dimensional representations are true, we would then also have to answer the significant questions of how and why our subtler selves are normally shackled to (or imprisoned by) our grosser ones (the very thought is gross).
That's very spiritual scientific of you, Ben
Cleric's last comment also provides an interesting angle of approach. The fact that BK is instinctively probing the etheric death spectrum with his logical reasoning through NDE accounts, perhaps without ever hearing about this spectrum before, means that thinking already lives across the threshold, if he simply takes the real-time thinking out of the blind spot. He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states, not drawn from the NDEs themselves, through his own independent reasoning.
The question is, how to bring this to his attention? In a certain sense, we have to show him his 'speculative hypothesis' should be taken as a symbol for something much less speculative and more serious. We could simply quote Steiner and show how he reached a similar idea consciously through supersensible research, but I imagine that will instinctively raise defense mechanisms that cause him to avoid the underlying idea, as it usually does. But if we just start talking about the 'etheric death spectrum' on the article, he will probably feel we are just weaving abstract theories. Maybe such a comment would fit quite naturally under Ben's