Are we all multiple personality, so to speak?

My friend Andy Walbert sent me this very interesting link.

https://www.salon.com/2018/06/23/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything_partner/

7 thoughts on “Are we all multiple personality, so to speak?

  1. Science (like any large ‘mature’ institution) is ponderous and slow to change, but there are more and more books and articles like this, showing that ‘the ship is beginning to turn.’ For me work like this ‘sharpens up’ the words from TGU and Elias … more sparks for guidance and me to chew on.

    The original article from Scientific American is less ‘readable’ but much deeper and more complete. Kastrup’s original paper is even deeper but couched in too much scientific lingo for me. You know you’re in for heavy going when the abstract begins “I propose an idealist ontology that makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and cosmopsychism.” 🙂

    Frank and TGU have done a much better job of illuminating these concepts for me.
    Jim

    1. Whew, I should hope so! You read convoluted academic prose like that, and at best you say, “What he said.” Can you imagine how fast I’d hang up on the guys upstairs if they did that?
      TGU: “We propose an idealist ontology that makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and –. Hello? Hello?”

  2. Bernardo Kastrup, first author on the Scientific American article (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/) and author of the original ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies’ paper says a lot of the same things as TGU (in a slightly more scientific manner 🙂 ). And he continually points out the ‘emperor has no clothes’, calling out the scientific community for trying to ignore the many quantum ‘anomalies.’

    At the bottom of the SA article there’s a brief biography and pointers to his other SA articles. I particularly like his Max Planck quote: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.” in his SA article “Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics.” Yet another voice and view of this shift in consciousness.
    Jim

  3. We are really seeing science and spirituality get closer and closer. I found this article fascinating–it bought out lines of thought I hadn’t heard of that do seem tied into what TGU have been presenting. Who would have thought to connect multiple personalities to the construction of the universe, but it’s not hard to see how it fits.

    1. Agree with you Jane (C)…. I`m with an ongoing Seth Dream Class. Obviously MANY of us experiencing more an more “the alternate realities.”

      Some time ago Charles Sides, Franks friend, recommended a book for me to read. The book is titled: Transformations in Consciousness, subtitled as “The Methaphysics and Epistemology” by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, containing his Introceptualism(foreword by Ron Leaonard)1995 state university of New York.

      I am thinking it is the very FIRST book of the science “to make SOME sense” out of it!
      And quote from the EDITORS Foreword:
      “The High Indifference ultimately dissolved the subject-object structure altogether as nondualistic Primordial Consciousness, or Field Consciousness, or as Wolff calls it, “Consciousness-without-an-object and without-a-subject.”

      And Wolff, Consciousness, 73; Experience and Philosophy, 288:

      “There finally arrived a state wherein both that which I have called the Self and that which had the value of Divinity were dissolved in a Somewhat, still more transcendent. There now remained nought but pure Being that could be called neither the Self nor God. No longer was “I” spreading everywhere through the whole of an illimitable and conscious Space, nor was there a Divine Presence all about me, but everywhere only Consciousness with no subjective nor objective element. Here, both symbols and concepts fail.”

      He reports that the attenuated relative consciousness continued in a paralell mode(Relative consciousness was extinguished only in the terminal phase of mystical penetration), within the forms of time, space and causality. Hence, language still applies, but only Silence is strictly appropriate to the pure mystical state. Even so, Wolff considers that the value of communicating what might be possible concerning the
      Realizations worth the risk of Defective formulation.

      Hm, I would never to have understood this book if not to have had “the background” by all of the study “on forehand” – among all the Many different “Sources” – and by the Many Helping Hands, such as Franks` and Charles`s…And all of You….and Many Others(SMILING).

      I`m soon picking up again the old book by Edgar Cayce titled as “The Power of Your Mind.”
      LOL, Inger Lise

  4. I’ve been using the scientific method with regards to what TGU has been telling us. I hold what they say as a hypothesis, a possibility, and allow data to accumulate to prove, disprove, or refine the proposed idea. It’s just one way of embracing the material that works for my engineering brain.

    That said, I continue to ask the question, who (as in, which strand) is expressing? I’ve been able to identify several major and minor strands, some that were more dominant in early life, some that step forward in later life, some that show up when I’m tired or stressed. It’s interesting to watch. And there is the watcher, the overarching part of me that observes, chooses, and weaves this personality together.

    I am grateful this morning for Frank and this community. I appreciate your deep thinking and careful posts. They are sparks for my contemplation, and I appreciate you taking the time to post them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *