reply to post by dave420
Dave, the happiness thing was just an illustration...I know that chemical levels can be measured, and it is "provable" in that sense. I'm wondering
why you have such a fascination with lack of proof of other's spiritual ideas though? Why should it be needed for me to prove to you that my
regressions are real to me? I'm not saying this to be nasty, but does it really matter that much to you what someone else has experienced? Why does
it matter so much, or seem to? Why not investigate it yourself with a completey cold mind, allow whatever might surface to surface and then we can
talk about it? That would be interesting! Of course our own perceptions can be flawed, and that's why some thing like regression has to be done by a
practitioner who is experienced and has integrity, with a subject who is safe to work with. It's not an easy thing to do well.
Proving even one experience of regression with historical corroboration might be a cumbersome task, and would be impossible to achieve for every
regression done. Historians are not infallible either, and even if the "facts" they present are correct, often the propaganda surrounding them will
distort them, and the distance of time will make it difficult to discern if they are accurate of not. Most regressions show very mundane lives, for
which there will be little or no historical data, making them impossibel to prove. It still all comes down to the realisation that spiritual
experiences cannot be measured, however much you want them to be, to satisfy your empirical expectations. Not everyone is as focused on "proof",
"fact" and "data" as you are, so it may be that you are the unusual one here...please don't take this as an insult...merely an observation that
you seem to be very fixed on the idea that everything should be quantifiable.
I don't particuarly care if my evidence is verifiable by other people. I felt it, and for me, it's an important piece of my spiritual progression
and history. It would be interesting to have it verified, but really it makes no difference.
Although many people dismiss hypnosis as pseudoscience, you might find Michael Newtons work interesting.
Although not quantifiable in tthe way you are expecting, it's the closest I've read to a repeated pattern of independently sourced accounts of
regression that all basically say the same thing.
Let me know what you think. I'm not asking you to change your mind...just investigate and discuss. If the perceptions that surface are your own, will
you be so willing to dismiss them as imagination? How will you feel if you *can't* explain part of it?
Edit to fix link..
[edit on 4-11-2008 by caitlinfae]