• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monroe Institute

I'm thankful for the dialogue. It prompts us to give thought to things we may not have considered.

Marplots, rather than use the term self centeredness, how about using the term self development which is free of the negative connotations associated with self centeredness. I'd compare my spiritual quest to attending a college. I'm doing this for self development. This self development also involves charitable work/contributions that existed far in advance of my interest in broader consciousness.

A second point regarding an outside authority - that is one of the reasons I'm at odds with mainline Christianity. The notion that we are to be judged by someone else it not consistent with NDEs. Ultimately, we are our own judge if one believes NDErs have anything of value to share.

Finally, before heading off to work, why do we do positive things for others in this world? What is it about our internal drive that causes some of us to behave this way? There are a variety of possible explanations. Here's one - it makes us feel good. Could that be considered a form of self centeredness? If so, perhaps being self centered isn't always a bad thing. Perhaps we are all self centered (motivated to do what is in our own unique best interests) and sometimes there is a coincidence with the greater good beyond ourselves. Other times the pursuit of personal interests places us at odds with the interests of others.
 
Hi jfish,

Your comments reminded me of research I have done in the past on the issue of who has distressing NDEs. I had a personal motivation for wanting to know about this. Here is a synopsis of what I have mainly found to date, taken from the IANDS web site.

Who Has Distressing NDEs?

As with the pleasurable NDE, distressing NDEs seem to occur about equally to people of both genders and of all ages, educational levels, socioeconomic levels, sexual orientations, spiritual beliefs, religious affiliations, and life experiences. Although people have sometimes wondered whether good people have pleasurable experiences and bad people have distressing ones, research has shown no such relationship between apparent life deeds and type of NDE (Rommer, 2000). In addition, some people's NDEs have contained both pleasurable and distressing elements, and among people who have had multiple NDEs, some have had a pleasurable experience one time and a distressing experience another, in no definite order.

The way one dies may be a factor in the type of NDE one has. Rommer found that dNDErs who had self-induced their deaths made up 55% of people in her research who reported a Type II Eternal Void experience, 18% who reported a Type III Hellish experience, and most of those who reported a Type IV Negative Judgment experience. Although it may be tempting to conclude that people who attempt suicide are being punished for trying to induce their own deaths, we must avoid this temptation, as the following paragraph will explain.

People who are in a distressed frame of mind at the time of their near-death episode and those who were raised to expect distress during death may be more prone to distressing NDEs. People who attempt suicide are almost always in a distressed frame of mind. Usually they are attempting suicide because they feel themselves to be in unendurable and unending emotional or physical pain. In addition, they are almost certainly aware of the widely held belief that suicide is cowardly and/or the wrong way to escape the pain of life. Although they hope for relief from their pain, they may also consciously or unconsciously fear punishment. In a heightened state of pain, as well as of fear and/or guilt, they are highly distressed and, consequently, may be somewhat more prone to having a dNDE.

However, the facts remain that

•The overall majority of distressing NDEs did not occur in the context of attempted suicide,
•Many pleasurable NDEs were the result of attempted suicide, and
•Many people who were in a distressed frame of mind and/or who expected judgement and punishment during death had a pleasurable NDE.
Bush (2002) examined the mystical literature of major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism; the research on other non-ordinary states of consciousness probably related to NDEs; and the data on distressing NDEs themselves. She came to the same conclusion as Rommer: Everyone has the potential to have a distressing near-death experience.

In summary, it is not known conclusively why most people report pleasurable NDEs and some report distressing ones. Whether this question can ever be answered, and what that answer might be, awaits further research

From http://www.iands.org/about-ndes/distressing-ndes.html

I have a close friend who had a distressing NDE. He was also in a great deal of physical pain and fear at the time of his experience. Not fear of what happens after death fear, but fear related to fearing for his life. He believes his experience was an afterlife encounter. He believes he deserved his distressing NDE because he'd been an awful person, but research like the above would tend to discredit this.

I was a spiritual person on a spiritual path for many years. I can only say, on my own behalf, that I had dedicated myself to a Buddhist-type path of loving-kindness for many years, I had disciplined myself through meditation and visualization to never judge, to think positively, and to help wherever I could. I worked closely with my dreams and believed them to be a source of spiritual guidance, and yet in 2005 I began to have horrible, vivid, demonic OBEs/lucid dreams that seemed incredibly real to me. I even converted to Christianity based on the advice of a well-meaning Christian friend. After I started back on seizure medications, the lucid dreams/OBEs stopped. Just like that.

So for me, amazingly, this was the product of a misfiring brain. I know firsthand what the brain is capable of creating, how real it seems, how frightening it can be, and how demonic experiences can in fact happen to someone who is living a pretty decent, unselfish life.

As a person who no longer believes that these experiences happen outside of one's own brain, it now upsets me to see how other experiencers tend to assume someone who has had a distressing NDE must have secretly been, at the very least, a negative person. Not you, jfish; I don't mean to imply that you would do that. I'm talking in general this is something I've seen.

It is really no different to me from the New Age you-create-your-own-reality belief, which I also used to hold, too, a belief that leads to cruel assumptions such as if you have cancer, you must have created it. Though at the time I didn't see that as cruel, I saw it as empowering.

This did not happen to me, in case it sounds like maybe I just have an axe to grind. No, most of the family and friends who witnessed my 3 years of dealing with these frequent demonic experiences were as baffled as I was, having known me and the kind of person I was.

The liberating aspect of you-create-your-own-reality is that you have the power to change your life with a change in thought. The dark, terribly harmful side to this belief is that if you get a profoundly negative experience, that is your creation too. You can live a good life and create a good afterlife experience, but if you have a distressing experience, you must have done something wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, I am totally in favor of experimenting with these things for yourself. Find out on your own, definitely. Test your experiences over a period of time. Be your own worst critic. Insist on not just one seemingly psychic experience, but several. Factor in any failures honestly.

I did this myself. During the years I was having the OBEs/lucid dreams, I immediately, as soon as I was "out," would attempt to ask a spiritual question or go somewhere or do something spiritual; I always had a spiritual focus, as to me being "out" was an incredible opportunity to explore what seemed to me the world of spirit, to test things, to learn. At the time I was completely convinced these were real spiritual experiences. Mostly mine began or ended in a frightening way, but sometimes they were neutral. I have my own theories now on why that was, based on Michael's Persinger's research out of Canada, but that's a whole different subject.

I found, as I've said many times before, to my increasing frustration, that I could never "learn" anything that I didn't already know. Now, of course, I think I understand why. But I am glad I experienced this for myself. If someone else had tried to tell it to me, I doubt it would have had the same impact. I might have thought they may have just been doing something wrong, or they weren't really "out," or they weren't really spiritual... I don't know.

At any rate, I wish you luck! I personally am curious about your experiences along these lines (the BigM, too, and anyone else seriously trying to explore along these lines in a rational way), and if you decide to share them here, I will enjoy reading them.
 
Finally, before heading off to work, why do we do positive things for others in this world? What is it about our internal drive that causes some of us to behave this way? There are a variety of possible explanations. Here's one - it makes us feel good.

Well, we are drifting from the OP, but I thought this deserved a comment. I think we generally act based on conclusions we have made about how the world works. An example would be someone whose experiences have taught them the world is full of avarice and competition contrasted with someone whose experiences tell them that other people are kind and trustworthy. The only nuance I'd add is that we also act, if possible, toward an idea of how the world ought to be, even if we know it isn't always.

In the main, I do not think that good or bad enter into it much. I think the vast majority of what we do is ethically neutral and not very well considered at all. For this latter reason, I reject the positive/negative dichotomy as artificial, relative, and not much of a guide. This is actually a good example of how my own experiences have colored my perceptions, which is what I was talking about above.

I certainly wouldn't insist that anyone else take my views as fundamental or valid unless they also matched their experiences.
 
I recently attended a holotropic breathing session (my first). I found the experience was very powerful. The altered state of consciousness that was created produced some rather dramatic effects. The cost was considerably less than a week long Monroe Institute program. For those readers interested in an experiential exploration of self, I'd recommend considering holotropic breathwork.
 
I recently attended a holotropic breathing session (my first). I found the experience was very powerful. The altered state of consciousness that was created produced some rather dramatic effects. The cost was considerably less than a week long Monroe Institute program. For those readers interested in an experiential exploration of self, I'd recommend considering holotropic breathwork.

Hyperventilating isn't good for you.
 
Hyperventilating isn't good for you.
Nothing which makes your brain malfunction is good for you, which is why taking recreational drugs is a bad idea.

Our brains have evolved to function optimally with a certain balance of chemicals, oxygen, sensory input etc. Changing that balance will therefore make your brain malfunction. Why anyone thinks that anything they experience during such a malfunction will reveal truths otherwise unavailable to them, and that it's therefore a good idea to deliberately make their brains malfunction, has always been a mystery to me.
 
Nothing which makes your brain malfunction is good for you, which is why taking recreational drugs is a bad idea.

Our brains have evolved to function optimally with a certain balance of chemicals, oxygen, sensory input etc. Changing that balance will therefore make your brain malfunction. ...snip...

This part is an interesting claim. If evolution of the brain has done this, does it follow that someone whose brain craves the enlightenment experience is already out of balance? After all, they are seeking something detrimental - or as you term it "a malfunction."

I am also wondering how it is that evolution could have optimally designed a brain for our current social environment, or even what "optimally" even means here. Is my brain "out of balance" and "malfunctioning" when I sleep? It certainly seems like something pretty bizarre is going on then.

My guess is that the phrase, "good for you" is where the problem enters. It seems to imply a standard set by historical accident grafted on by evolution. It would be just as valid to say that evolution, as it continues, brings this new sort of brain into the mix -- one that seeks out altered states.
 
Variety is generated all the time, what determines if a particular variant is selected for is whether it is beneficial, i.e. whether it results in the individuals who possess it living longer, and therefore having more offspring, than those who don't.

So what do you think, marplots? Does "craving the enlightenment experience", which seems to lead an individual to experiment with things like depriving themselves of oxygen and taking potentially dangerous drugs, increase or decrease their chances of living long enough to have offspring?
 
Variety is generated all the time, what determines if a particular variant is selected for is whether it is beneficial, i.e. whether it results in the individuals who possess it living longer, and therefore having more offspring, than those who don't.

So what do you think, marplots? Does "craving the enlightenment experience", which seems to lead an individual to experiment with things like depriving themselves of oxygen and taking potentially dangerous drugs, increase or decrease their chances of living long enough to have offspring?

I don't know. But that's why I don't think the good/bad framework based on evolution really says much. It might just as well be something that is both or neither. For instance, do the benefits of curiosity outweigh the hazards?

So much of what determines the number of offspring seems unrelated to experimentation. Maybe the guy/gal who is attracted to spirituality and exploration early on finds their calling and starts a Mormon family of a dozen or so later. I'm proposing evolution to be too blunt an instrument to care much.

And even if you can figure out a connection, you have to then demonstrate it won't simply arise anew in some sub-set of the population as an artifact. I do like the idea that a certain amount of curiosity is a good thing, but that's just something I prefer to think without investigation.
 
Pixel, I tend to agree with some of the points that marplots makes. Why use the word "malfunction" with its negative implications? How do we know it is a malfunction? Just because something is out of the ordinary doesn't mean it is a malfunction, does it? And how do we know that the normal state of the brain function is optimal? The breathwork program I attended was lead by a former psychiatrist. She found through her work that her patients benefited more from her alternative approach than those that went through traditional psychiatric treatment. She decided to embrace breathwork because she believes it is a better option and is a desirable means of understanding oneself.
 
I'm proposing evolution to be too blunt an instrument to care much. [...] I do like the idea that a certain amount of curiosity is a good thing, but that's just something I prefer to think without investigation.
I agree with both these statements. It's just that I thought you were implying that "craving the enlightenment experience" was the next step in our evolution or something.

Pixel, I tend to agree with some of the points that marplots makes. Why use the word "malfunction" with its negative implications? How do we know it is a malfunction? Just because something is out of the ordinary doesn't mean it is a malfunction, does it? And how do we know that the normal state of the brain function is optimal?
Evolution by natural selection produces organisms which are increasingly optimised for the conditions in which they live. So we know that our brains have evolved so that their normal working is optimal (or as close to it as several millions years of selection can produce) for the conditions under which they evolved. Anything that messes with that normal working, whether it's ingestion (deliberate or accidental) of a poisonous chemical or a result of illness or brain injury, must surely be classified as a malfunction.

There is a case to be made that society has changed so quickly that adaptations may not have kept up, though.
 
Before I lose track, "breathwork" is hyperventilation? What does that do?

(note to Pixel42: I don't intend to try it!)
 
Before I lose track, "breathwork" is hyperventilation? What does that do?
I know depriving yourself of oxygen is supposed to highten the sexual experience. Hence the occasional finding of the body of someone with a plastic bag over their head who accidentally suffocated themselves whilst masturbating, surely the most embarassing cause of death to end up on anyone's death certificate.

I'm not sure "breathwork" consists only of hyperventilation, though that's certainly something that's practised deliberately. I just looked it up and it's apparently not the lack of oxygen that causes the effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilating

Hyperventilation or overbreathing is the state of breathing faster and/or deeper than normal at rest,[1] with more specific sources generally adding being inappropriately high in regard to the respiratory drive from carbon dioxide,[2] or causing inappropriate decrease of it.[3] It can result from a psychological state such as a panic attack, from a physiological condition such as metabolic acidosis, or can be brought about by lifestyle risk factors or voluntarily as in the yogic practice of Bhastrika. It often occurs together with labored breathing, which, in contrast, can also be a response to increased carbon dioxide levels.

Hyperventilation can, but does not necessarily always cause symptoms such as numbness or tingling in the hands, feet and lips, lightheadedness, dizziness, headache, chest pain, slurred speech, nervous laughter, and sometimes fainting, particularly when accompanied by the Valsalva maneuver.

Counterintuitively, such effects are not precipitated by the sufferer's lack of oxygen or air. Rather, the hyperventilation itself reduces the carbon dioxide concentration of the blood to below its normal level because one is expiring more carbon dioxide than being produced in the body, thereby raising the blood's pH value (making it more alkaline), initiating constriction of the blood vessels which supply the brain, and preventing the transport of oxygen and other molecules necessary for the function of the nervous system.[4]
 
The breathwork program I attended was lead by a former psychiatrist. She found through her work that her patients benefited more from her alternative approach than those that went through traditional psychiatric treatment. She decided to embrace breathwork because she believes it is a better option and is a desirable means of understanding oneself.

Why is she "former?"
 
I didn't ask for specifics. Based on some general comments she made I got the impression she felt she could accomplish more by using alternative modalities than continuing to use traditional psychiatric modalities.
 
I didn't ask for specifics. Based on some general comments she made I got the impression she felt she could accomplish more by using alternative modalities than continuing to use traditional psychiatric modalities.

Accomplish more what?
 
Pixel, here's an alternative thought regarding evolution. Evolution isn't the only means of optimization and, given the slow pace of evolutionary change, it is very inefficient. Mankind has never been satisfied with relying solely on evolution to improve our lot in life. Experimentation and exploration seem to be part of our genetic makeup. Consider all the research going into gene therapy.

So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)? There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?
 
Resume, I think her sense of accomplishment comes from helping others gain new insights into themselves. Most have issues of one sort or another that can be addressed more efficiently through the alternative approaches she takes to working with people.
 
...
So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)? There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?

That part.
I am not against experimentation, but this isn't experimentation like they do in science. It's gathering experiences for entertainment. I do not think it does one whit to "better understand ourselves."

The difference to me is one between a mountain climber and a geologist. They might both climb mountains, but the first isn't trying to understand anything deep about mountains.
 
Pixel, here's an alternative thought regarding evolution. Evolution isn't the only means of optimization and, given the slow pace of evolutionary change, it is very inefficient. Mankind has never been satisfied with relying solely on evolution to improve our lot in life. Experimentation and exploration seem to be part of our genetic makeup. Consider all the research going into gene therapy.
I'm quite sure we're going to take charge of our own evolution very soon, if that's what you're driving at. I don't think we'll do it by altering our brains to make them malfunction, though, though we may well find ways of optimising them further than natural selection has and even of improving them in some ways.

So what is wrong with seeking alternatives for better understanding ourselves (which can have a positive impact on how we relate with others)?
Nothing at all. As long as you don't do yourself permanent damage in the process.

There are many drugs on the market that are intended to alter an individual's mental state. Why should some be deemed illegal and others legal? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not?
I'm personally in favour of legalising all drugs, as I think it's entirely up to the individual what they choose to do their own bodies, as long as they are prepared to accept any consequences.

In general, however, and with the obvious exception of drugs like alcohol and tobacco which were in common use before their deletarious effects were apparent, the answer to your question is that drugs which are taken by a sick person whose brains are not working correctly to make them better (e.g. anti-psychotics or anti-depressants) are deemed acceptable, whilst drugs which are taken unnecessarily by a healthy person and which can produce adverse affects on them (either temporarily or permanently) are not. This is why the same drug can be acceptable when taken by a sick person but not when taken by a healthy person. This seems to me a perfectly reasonable distinction to make.

The difference to me is one between a mountain climber and a geologist. They might both climb mountains, but the first isn't trying to understand anything deep about mountains.

Well put.

We often learn most about how things work from how they behave when they're not working properly, and a great deal has already been learned about how the brain functions by studying how that functioning is impaired by poisonous substances as well as by illness and injury. That certainly extends to learning about how consciousness is generated by the brain by studying how that generation is impaired when the brain is not functioning correctly. I just don't think that those impaired states of consciousness can tell us any deep truths about the nature of reality.
 

Back
Top Bottom