originally posted by: Gryphon66
At which point, what is there really to protect ourselves from?
A very good question isn't it?
That's the reason I like the house analogy. I don't live in a cabin to defend myself against rain and bears, I do it simply because I don't
them in that particular area of my space. I love to look out my window and see a momma bear on her back rolling in the grass
five feet from my door. I like
being startled by a moose suddenly staring into a window behind my TV. I like
when something "messes"
with the lights.
I really see all these things as the same, there are just times and spaces that I would rather not deal with it. In my view, there isnt much
difference from that moose or that shadow person. For others, there is a MASSIVE difference and frequently its like that is accompanied by these
issues. When I was in that type of state, I eventually realized that what I was fighting and defending against was actually the archetypes and
assumptions in my own mind. It seems that changing that attitude alone is one of the most effective steps one can take. In my experience, it both
closes and opens the doors I like best.
I mean, we could delve deep into semantics here, but I think you get what I'm saying.
I was raised similarly. All of these "woo" experiences were from the devil, or some type of evil, and for a young child that is terrifying.
Unsurprisingly I "rebelled" against such belief systems virulently
for years. I eventually went into the ooey gooey love extreme, where all my
experiences made me "special."
Eventually, I made the realization that I was fighting/accepting those archetypes in others
minds. I set out to discover and learn everything
for myself and that was one of the best decisions I ever made. But, it was a tough one too, especially because I liked to think I was already doing
things that way.
What's interesting is that either
extreme seemed to exacerbate the frequency and magnitude of experiences. Neither extreme seemed to
precipitate more "good" or "evil" events, just more of everything. Like yourself, I vacillated between extremes (I'm so special! Wait, no, I'm just a
narcissistic speck of dust!) before I reached some sort of equilibrium.
It really does seem that state of mind is a first line of "defense," of sorts, and arguably, it is the simplest and most difficult item to actually
Its only been recently (past 5-10 years) that I added "when" to the questions of "who/what/where," and I think that is really the one that fascinates
me the most.
With a moose or bear, the "when" is roughly the same as me. But, for these other things, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Even with your
typical, basic haunting it would appear that "when" isn't nearly as static as our normal experience. Events long past suddenly appear in the same
frame as "now." I dig that, and even though its something we have only begun to explore, I suspect it might one of the most relevant factors of the
topic. Maybe even one of the most relevant factors in the human experience.
My dad passed away a few weeks ago, and we were very, very close. Of course, I'm completely heartbroken about it, but moments after he passed it felt
like he was giving me the most astonishing "hug." In that moment I was certain, absolutely certain,
that we would meet again. That was because
it felt like it had already happened. It still baffles me, honestly, but it harkens back to that "when." I'm not sure I believe in any of the standard
afterlife scenarios, but I do think there is something there. Something that interacts with the typical passage and experience of time, but is not
bound to it like we are.
That's one of the aspects that leads me to believe there is a diversity to these things, rather than it being different faces of the same phenomena.
In that respect, something like a Bigfoot would need a bit different handling than a moose, shadow person, or Faerie.
On the note of science involving beliefs.. you know that's heresy, right?
I chose that word specifically too.. I think that as long as we are the
ones doing it, we are innately bound in certain ways. Interestingly, it seems our tendency is to shift from honest exploration to holding our views as
immutable, omniscient fact regardless of what system is employed. I like to think the next revolution of understanding will finally put it to rest,
but it never has. Funny how we not only cycle through those individual viewpoints like we've talked about, but also collectively over generations. And
we are always so damn sure.
Even so, I do maintain that the scientific method is the best we've got, and I can't fathom what could be better.. but the same thing was probably
said before the advent of the SM too. I hope we get to see what's next in our lifetimes though. I think we will.
And I think it will finally begin
to give some insight into the very things this thread is about.