Life As A Channeller

[minsocal]

Until this morning I was not all that familiar with Mario Beauregard, but a swing through the internet assured me that his work is serious and highly respected. His research centers in the area of the brain sometimes called the limbic system which was no surprise to me. This is the region of the brain that governs both emotion and intuition. The manner in which this area of the brain is "wired" is very different when compared to brain centers where rational processing takes place. It has been shown that this area of the brain processes information much more rapidly than the rational centers and, as I have noted elsewhere, it is the seat of moral emotions and moral intuitions.

 

Based on this I can understand how this can be a very personal matter. I test as highly intuitive and have difficulty presenting rational/intellectual justifications for what "I know" and what "I feel" unless I make an extreme effort to turn the language into a form thinking types understand.

[David]

I would not want Jen to have to release any more personal information concerning this study than she already has. I am not interested in her specific scan. I am interested in the study that she talks about where people who are having religious experiences are scanned. I can not imagine that when this study was published that it gave any specific information that could be traced to Jen. I suspect that Jen was lumped into a general catagory like "mystics" where she could not be specifically identified. If this is the case then there is no way that a person who looks at this study could tell how Jen as one person affected the study and therefore no way for Jen's privacy to be invaded.

[minsocal]

The more I read about Mario Beauregard * the more I realize that he is using Jungian theory to describe much of his work. Although he is investigating the physical correleates of unio mystica , he is a non-materialist. Dr. John Searle, well known for his views on consciousness, is also a non-materialist. The issue that is gaining traction in the scientific community is that what we call the mind is "real" and not a mere epiphenomenon. In other words, these people are suggesting that we really need to get past the so-called mind-body problem, and bring the spiritual sphere back into focus. In short, mind and body are both required for what we might call a religious or spiritual experience.

 

Unio mystica is very much like what others describe as a "peak experience". Maslow did a lot of research on the subject and Joseph Campbell wrote quite a bit about it also. Both are linked to Jungian theory. Unio mystica and peak experiences are quite rare. Regardless of the terminology, the subject is linked to what we think of as "progressive" in many different ways.

 

 

* BTW, the internet has a number of articles and interviews available.

[David]

I am trying to figure out why Jen has been so defensive about the research study. If I had been a part of a study based upon the “normal brain” and there were published findings related to that study I would have no problem telling people about that study knowing that by doing so I would not release any information about my medical history.

 

Jen gave me this challenge (See “Song of Solomon”): “I also am a channeller. If you wish to engage me in a scientific debate about what I am doing and how I am doing it, I can meet me at every conceivable level in that debate. I am a channeller who had the guts to get my brain scanned so that I would have some scientific documentation for what I do and how I do it. I know of no other channeller who has had the courage to stick his or her own brain under a SPECT scanner, and allow the science to speak.”

 

“Scientific documentation” is public documentation. “Allowing the science to speak” is public documentation otherwise there is no “speaking”. But I am really not asking for the part of the study that would show Jen’s specific scientific documentation and show her specific scan because that would not be shown specifically in the study. Jen would have to release personal medical records to show the documentation that she says is there. But I’m not asking for that. I’m just asking for information related to the study itself so I can research that study and see how it fits into the larger picture.

[minsocal]

Ahh ... The Song of Solomon. According to legend, the last Rabbi to see the face of God and live through the experience claimed that the Song of Solomon was the holiest book in the Bible. Now I am quite sure I know where Jen is speaking from. The pieces all fit together!

[David]

Well you may want to read the whole "Song of Solomon" thread. And you may want to ask Jen "where she is coming from". The "Song of Solomon" thread shows "where I am coming from". I tried to challenge Jen and support her at the same time. So far in this thread I am not showing much support but it is there and it will come out.

[minsocal]

Well you may want to read the whole "Song of Solomon" thread. And you may want to ask Jen "where she is coming from". The "Song of Solomon" thread shows "where I am coming from". I tried to challenge Jen and support her at the same time. So far in this thread I am not showing much support but it is there and it will come out.

 

Actually, I have read the Song of Solomon thread. And, I have read almost everything Jen has posted. It is largely a matter of translation between a variety of disciplines, theories and theologies that appear different, but are not. The language of cognitive neueoscience in relation to spirituality remained dormant for a more than a century and has now resurfaced in much greater detail than ever before. In short, God did not mess up creation, nor did humans.

[Realspiritik]

I am trying to figure out why Jen has been so defensive about the research study.

 

Good grief, David, based on what you've said in your last few posts here -- Jen is being defensive and can't imagine why! -- I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that I'm not the first person you've pissed off because you did not consider the relationship aspects of your post before you pushed the "add reply" button.

 

Please go back and reread what you said in Post #20. Try to put yourself in my place. Do you think you sound friendly? Curious? Supportive? Empathetic?

 

If you think you sound either friendly or curious or supportive or empathetic, then you might consider revisiting your written communication skills, as you do not sound at all friendly in Post #20.

 

I base my understanding of your intent towards me on what you said in the past to both me and others. Since your intent towards me has been fairly consistently unfriendly, it was reasonable and appropriate for me to read your post in this light.

 

I have already said how I "read" your post, and will not repeat my impression here.

 

This work is an example of what I am trying to learn from you. Certainly there were real persons involved in the work that led to this book. Yet the purpose of the work was for the information to become public. You have described a process where the purpose of the work was to become public. I am sure that this was explained to you and I am surprised that you now feel that it is a private matter.

 

Again, problems with empathy. "I am sure that this was explained to you . . ." Well, yes, it was explained to me that, as in the case of all medical research, there are high ethical standards involved, ethical standards of putting the patients' best medical interests ahead of research interests (even when, as sometimes happens, a medical research study has to be stopped cold because too many negative side effects are showing up in patients.) The patients' best interests also include respecting the psycho-social aspects of their involvement in any sort of medical treatment, and respecting their privacy and confidentiality.

 

The patients come before the research, you see, and I'm not getting a sense from you that you understand that. Therefore, I don't really trust you with my personal information. (And please don't tell me again that "it's not personal." For me, it's personal. Okay?)

 

I hope I explained clearly enough why I am being defensive.

 

Jen

[David]

Jen,

 

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you want “the science to speak” and claim to be a part of a research study that by it’s very nature is public while at the same time saying that what you are claiming is in fact a part of your medical records which will stay private. I say “public research” and you say “medical records”. I now suspect that we are really talking about are your medical records and not about any public research. So please don’t again say that you are willing to support your personal view of your medical records by having “science speak”. Don’t ever again say that “I'm a human being with a very rare but very real and scientifically verifiable skill: I'm Jesus' human channelling partner” and don’t ever again say “I have copies of the scans, which I'm grateful for. Should anymore want to know more about this part of my story, please let me know. The scans themselves are pretty cool if you're into neurophysiology, psychology, or psychiatry.”

 

Science has been speaking about whether the brain has a “God spot” or not. In the latest study researchers used a functional magnetic-resonance imaging machine which can identify the most energetically active regions of the brain. They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum and the same circuits were used when religiously inclined people dealt with issues related to God. This suggests that there is no unique “God spot” that is related to religious visions or voices. The studies suggest that the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious beliefs. (If anyone wants to continue a discussion on “neurotheology” let’s start a new thread).

 

I do not see any specific research on channeling. There is research on those who hear voices and see visions. I do not see in any of that research anything close to a conclusion that those voices or visions are more than the individual’s mind at work. I do not see that the "quality" of what is said by those voices makes any difference. Those voices may be speaking “truths”, but there is no research to show that the brain circuits support those "truth claims". How this specifically relates to you is obviously contained in your medical history and known by people like your family who know you. You have the absolute right not to share that private information with us.

 

What is important to me is how Progressive Christianity should respond to the fact that you claim to channel the historical Jesus. It seems to me that because your Jesus may be progressive does not give your claims any more validity than the claims of Pat Robertson who shares with you the claims of direct dictation. “How we know what we know” seems more important to me for Progressive Christianity that “what we know”. The search for the historical Jesus is much more related to “how we know what we know” and is a good example of what Progressive Christianity is all about. Scholars disagree on what that evidence supports as far as what Jesus said and did, but scholars and scientists agree on some basics of “how we know what we know”. I know of no scholar or scientist who would seek you out as a link to the historical Jesus as you wanted us to do when you first came to this website (there are websites out there where people will do what you wanted to do for us—send Jesus a question and the chancellor will obtain the answer). I see that no one took you up on your offer to answer questions sent to the historical Jesus. You evidently are progressive in many ways, but your claim to channel the historical Jesus is not included in Progressive Christianity by any leader of this social movement that I know of.

 

You can take this personally and conclude that the problem is my lack of empathy. But this is not a conversation between you and me. Whether you trust me or not, this is a public conversation. Others can and will decide whether to trust you and your claims not because they really “know” you, but based upon the public claims that you make. Others will have to decide when you say that “I have talked to many different angels, including Jesus, and I have also talked directly to our divine Mother and Father” whether “how you know” is different than the rest of us. The one thing we can say is that science does not support that you receive direct dictation from angels, the historical Jesus or God. That is really all we can ever know about someone who comes to this website.

 

Now, believe it or not, I am very supportive of Jen, the person. Jen, the person has showed remarkable insight and wisdom. You seem to ignore those conversations that we have had that show that support. You become very defensive when I or anyone dares to question your channeling claims which tells me that this is much more about Jen the person than the historical Jesus. I would suggest that this is “not all about you” and that empathy is not the issue. I would suggest that we all would welcome your continued insights and wisdom. Just use your own name.

 

David

[minsocal]

David,

 

Jen has spoken. Whose doubts are you confronting? Do you not know your own experience?

 

Minsocal

[minsocal]

Hmmm ... it was just that simple. I came to know my own experience! Thanks Jen, I get it now..

[David]

Minsocal,

 

I am wary of simple. But you evidently like mysterious sounding postings.

 

Try this one: A buffalo with its head, horns and four legs all pass through a lattice window. Why is it that its tail gets stuck?

 

David

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

 

I am wary of simple. But you evidently like mysterious sounding postings.

 

Try this one: A buffalo with its head, horns and four legs all pass through a lattice window. Why is it that its tail gets stuck?

 

David

 

Because it did get stuck.

[David]

Repeating the question as the answer is sort of like answering your own question with your own answer which by the way I am glad you did since you evidently are now satisfied.

[David]

I have made posts about experience and knowing. I like to talk about epistemology. But it is not as simple as your question makes it appear to be.

 

I was thinking about the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. In that movie a brilliant person fooled his own wife for a long time into thinking that his “friends” were real persons when in fact they lived only in his own head. He in fact could never persuade those “friends” to go away even after he gradually realized that no one else saw or heard them. If one were going to attempt to decide whether those “friends” were real or not the last thing one would do would be to ask that person to “know their own experience”.

 

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

 

Jen had shouted out for some time that there was independent scientific evidence related to a research study. As it turns out her specific information is protected by her medical records and generally the scanning process that she talks about really does not show what she claims. In other words Jen has lost the ability to show us anything other than her own testimony and we can not accept her own testimony for the reasons I have stated. So although Jen, like all of us “knows” her experience it is not that simple.

[minsocal]

I have made posts about experience and knowing. I like to talk about epistemology. But it is not as simple as your question makes it appear to be.

 

I was thinking about the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. In that movie a brilliant person fooled his own wife for a long time into thinking that his “friends” were real persons when in fact they lived only in his own head. He in fact could never persuade those “friends” to go away even after he gradually realized that no one else saw or heard them. If one were going to attempt to decide whether those “friends” were real or not the last thing one would do would be to ask that person to “know their own experience”.

 

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

 

Jen had shouted out for some time that there was independent scientific evidence related to a research study. As it turns out her specific information is protected by her medical records and generally the scanning process that she talks about really does not show what she claims. In other words Jen has lost the ability to show us anything other than her own testimony and we can not accept her own testimony for the reasons I have stated. So although Jen, like all of us “knows” her experience it is not that simple.

 

Your implications are no longer subtle, yet unwarrented. You could have just said this up front and saved us all the probelm. Just as davidk could have done.

[David]

You remain subtle. Why don’t you just post what is on your mind? If you want to make me the “bad guy” go ahead and give it your best shot. I don’t mind being the recipient of your anger or whatever. Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so. If we can work out any disagreement then that would be great. If we can’t that’s ok also.

[minsocal]

You remain subtle. Why don’t you just post what is on your mind? If you want to make me the “bad guy” go ahead and give it your best shot. I don’t mind being the recipient of your anger or whatever. Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so. If we can work out any disagreement then that would be great. If we can’t that’s ok also.

 

It isn't anger, and I am not known to be subtle. The questions being thrown about here have been contested for thousands of years. Those questions are common knowledge, and always have been. Your desire for epistemology makes the world far, too far, complicated. To put it bluntly, I have said over and over again, this message board has NO PLACE TO GO if there is no reconciliation between you and davidk. You have been influential in setting the tone of this board. I have not.

[David]

I would much rather reconcile with Jen. I hope that will happen some day. I can understand why it may not happen today.

[minsocal]

<snip>

 

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

 

<snip>

 

See bold. That is davidk speaking, the "propositional content" of anything but a person. Will you require my medical records to prove I feel that I am a progressive Christian? Frankly, what you stated (in bold), if you truly mean it, well ... I'm just out of words. I am simply on the wrong message board.

[David]

I have spent 30 years as a “deal maker”. My job involved taking people with differing interests and “making deals”. Here is a suggestion for a “deal”.

 

First a “reality check”. If “accepting Jen” means that one has to accept literally that Jen receives and transmits the exact words of the historical Jesus then clearly no one so accepts Jen. Clearly if they did accept this there would have been a series of questions directed to the historical Jesus given to Jen. This is what Jen wanted. This is certainly what would be expected for anyone who accepts Jen in this way. Can you imagine the amount of problems this would solve? Since no one saw any potential in this then clearly Jen has never been “accepted” in this way.

 

But certainly Jen has been accepted and appreciated. Some people may see Jen as a creative person who uses this as a technique or some people may just ignore the whole channeling issue and concentrate on what is being said. There are many ways to just avoid the whole issue and go straight to “accepting” the person. I think that has happened and understandably so.

 

But what has also happened is that people have left. Progressives have a terrible time with including/excluding and here we have including/excluding in the same person! People would rather exclude themselves from this website rather than suggest that this part of Jen be excluded even if that is for a larger purpose. From what I have seen I think this history stretches from FredP early on to most recently with people like Bill whose conversation with Jen started this tread.

 

I would suggest a “deal” that may work out for all concerned. The deal would be that no one force Jen to attempt to change what she claims to be her experience. However, Jen would have to obtain permission from her Jesus to not use his name anymore. Some may be able to recognize when that Jesus is speaking but that Jesus must surely realize that the “direct dictation” alternative is not effective and does more harm than good. We would still get the same words, but they would be signed by Jen. If Jen receives too much credit in her mind then she will just have to live with that. Jen obviously loses whatever good or bad is associated with the channeling claim (again the evidence indicates that the channeling claim was never really accepted here anyway). It seems that we all could concentrate on the insight/wisdom including Jen who would no longer have to defend the channeling claim.

[minsocal]

I have spent 30 years as a “deal maker”. My job involved taking people with differing interests and “making deals”. Here is a suggestion for a “deal”.

 

First a “reality check”. If “accepting Jen” means that one has to accept literally that Jen receives and transmits the exact words of the historical Jesus then clearly no one so accepts Jen. Clearly if they did accept this there would have been a series of questions directed to the historical Jesus given to Jen. This is what Jen wanted. This is certainly what would be expected for anyone who accepts Jen in this way. Can you imagine the amount of problems this would solve? Since no one saw any potential in this then clearly Jen has never been “accepted” in this way.

 

But certainly Jen has been accepted and appreciated. Some people may see Jen as a creative person who uses this as a technique or some people may just ignore the whole channeling issue and concentrate on what is being said. There are many ways to just avoid the whole issue and go straight to “accepting” the person. I think that has happened and understandably so.

 

But what has also happened is that people have left. Progressives have a terrible time with including/excluding and here we have including/excluding in the same person! People would rather exclude themselves from this website rather than suggest that this part of Jen be excluded even if that is for a larger purpose. From what I have seen I think this history stretches from FredP early on to most recently with people like Bill whose conversation with Jen started this tread.

 

I would suggest a “deal” that may work out for all concerned. The deal would be that no one force Jen to attempt to change what she claims to be her experience. However, Jen would have to obtain permission from her Jesus to not use his name anymore. Some may be able to recognize when that Jesus is speaking but that Jesus must surely realize that the “direct dictation” alternative is not effective and does more harm than good. We would still get the same words, but they would be signed by Jen. If Jen receives too much credit in her mind then she will just have to live with that. Jen obviously loses whatever good or bad is associated with the channeling claim (again the evidence indicates that the channeling claim was never really accepted here anyway). It seems that we all could concentrate on the insight/wisdom including Jen who would no longer have to defend the channeling claim.

 

Let's make a deal, was that Monty Hall or Monty Python? Leave me out, thank you.

[October's Autumn]

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

[David]

See bold. That is davidk speaking, the "propositional content" of anything but a person. Will you require my medical records to prove I feel that I am a progressive Christian? Frankly, what you stated (in bold), if you truly mean it, well ... I'm just out of words. I am simply on the wrong message board.

You are correct. Both Davids are talking inclusion/exclusion (not the reconciliation you had in mind?). Your observation also supports and justifies the progressive's natural tendency to include. As far as the medical records are concerned you need to go back and read what I wrote. But you are on the right message board.

[David]

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

I do not think that complete freedom takes you anywhere. Certainly Progressive Christianity is not based upon complete freedom. People come to this website I think at least in part to work out what it means to be a Progressive Christian. Some leave this website when they see complete freedom as being more important than working out what it means to be a Progressive Christian. As I said I think that has been true from FredP to most currently Bill. To the extent that this website can reflect a social movement called Progressive Christianity it will deal with inclusion/exclusion that is inherent in any social movement. I keep suggesting that we take that process out of the closet and make it public, visable and non personal. A mission statement is the best way to do that. Is it our mission to encourage "direct dictation" from the historical Jesus? If so then do something to support that mission. Ask Jen to ask Jesus all of those important questions. What part of the Bible is correct? Did or did not Paul have an actual vision of Jesus and how different in Paul's Jesus from the historical Jesus. If you are not going to include "direct dictation" from the historical Jesus as part of your mission then don't patronize Jen by saying in some way that her channeling "belongs" as a part of this mission when it does not.

 

On the other hand we could separate this message board completely from any mission related to Progressive Chistianity and encourage complete freedom of posting from any and all. I am sure I would then leave. So who are you going to exclude?