From: cole@gaff.physci.psu.edu (Robert Cole)
Subject: Re: OOBE or just vivid imagination
Organization: Penn State University, Physical Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:30:54 GMT


NOTE:  The opinions expressed below are those of an individual with only
      6 (six) credits in psychology.


>"When the only tool one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

bravo!

>>> My overall sense, though, is that we're both struggling together
>>> to understand what's going on here - not that we're taking the most mean-
>>> ingful or productive approach, since it's based on analysis and a fairly
>>> conventional logic.

>> Au contraire, this is the ONLY meaningful and productive approach.
>> IMHO. :-)
     ^
	I take McGrath's 'H' here to mean 'honest' as I detect no humility
in any of his postings.

>What do others feel on this subject - or is this debate going to just be
>between myself and Robert?

	I'm glad you used the word "debate" rather than "discussion."  It
seems clear that one of the participants involved is not interested in 
modifying his model of reality but only in forcing all data to conform to
it.  I can relate to this attitude as I, until very recently, was your
basic hard-core reductionist at heart.  Now I can honestly say I understand
Pope's admonition, "a little learning is a dangerous thing," and the old
pearl which says that the only true wisdom is the knowledge that one knows
nothing.
	I find the gedanken experiment to be a particularly cogent illustration
of Gary's point and consider the objections raised to it to be irrelevant.
I think it is regretfull that the anecdotal evidence for the validity of obes
is apparently receiving so little attention.  There are those who obviously
place zero value on such evidence but I personally find it to be compelling
and would like to read more stories by those who believe they have validated
obes for themselves than any more attempts to denigrate these experiences or
explain them away.
	I trust the day will come when the "mystical" world will be seen
as an equally valid description as the "rational" one in much the same way
as quantum and classical mechanics are equally valid under the appropriate
circumstances despite the fact that they provide inherently different
descriptions.  I think the derisive attitude that the "rationalists" typically
display toward the "mystics" is a consequence of their perception that
the rational models are mutually exclusive with the mystical models.  I don't
believe this is true.  An excellent book concerned with how rationality can
be reconciled with mysticism is "The Tao of Physics."  If you think
rationality is the be-all-end-all of perceptual modes, I recommend the
Castaneda books,  but you may as well discount the ramblings of these writers
as they don't have degrees in psychology and are probably not up on
the decades of reasearch that have been done in the fields of...
	I have included the excerpt below from "The Tao of Physics" for
the benefit of all those who look to science to provide them with all of
the answers they seek.  The example comes from physics, but the truth of
it spans all the sciences.

		Physicists have come to see that all their theories
	of natural phenomena, including the 'laws' the describe, are
	creations of the human mind; properties of our conceptual
	map of reality, rather than of reality itself.  This
	conceptual scheme is necessarily limited and approximate, as
	are all the scientific theories and 'laws of nature' it
	contains...What makes science so successfull is the discovery
	that approximations are possible.  If one is satisfied with
	an approximate 'understanding' of nature, one can describe
	selected groups of phenomena this way, neglecting other
	phenomena which are less relevant. 


-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------
|  If you think 'I know well,' little truth you know.  |
|               - Kena Upanishad                       |
 ------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body