I've never been too keen on the focus level paradigm. This does not allow for "mind split" or multiple consciousnesses (multiple "I's"). And yet multiple "I's" are reported all the time in the literature. The simplest form is "physical consciousness" continuing whilst the OBEr experiences "astral consciousness" simultaneously and independently.
So here are a few examples of spontaneous OBEs which occurred whilst the physical body was fully active. In many cases the physical body continued with its activity, talking, driving, walking, doing intricate tasks etc, whilst the OBEr was floating up above watching:
Nurse attending to patient has OBE http://www.oberf.org/marcia_t_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/marcia_t_sobe.htm)
Girl walking round shop has OBE http://www.oberf.org/bonnie_c_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/bonnie_c_sobe.htm)
Girl working on wood carving has OBE http://www.oberf.org/dixieann_t_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/dixieann_t_sobe.htm)
Man talking to personnel dept has OBE http://www.oberf.org/iran_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/iran_sobe.htm)
Truck driver has OBE http://www.oberf.org/dwight_m_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/dwight_m_sobe.htm)
Woman driving car has OBE http://www.oberf.org/nora_j_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/nora_j_sobe.htm)
Woman walking down 5th Ave has OBE http://www.oberf.org/karen_k_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/karen_k_sobe.htm)
Woman walking/talking with friend in park has OBE http://www.oberf.org/samantha_k_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/samantha_k_sobe.htm)
Screaming kicking girl has OBE http://www.oberf.org/luise_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/luise_sobe.htm)
Screaming infant has OBE http://www.oberf.org/kevin_r_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/kevin_r_sobe.htm)
Man walking/talking with cousin has OBE http://www.oberf.org/brandon_sobe_2320.htm (http://www.oberf.org/brandon_sobe_2320.htm)
Woman standing/talking with her mother has OBE http://www.oberf.org/annie_b_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/annie_b_sobe.htm)
Girl sitting on swing has OBE http://www.oberf.org/lisa_c_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/lisa_c_sobe.htm)
Schoolgirl walking home has OBE http://www.oberf.org/kimberly_k_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/kimberly_k_sobe.htm)
Woman fighting off carjacker has OBE http://www.oberf.org/amy_i_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/amy_i_sobe.htm)
Woman smoking/driving has OBE(s) http://www.oberf.org/karen_d_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/karen_d_sobe.htm)
Man walking to beach has OBE http://www.oberf.org/wayne_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/wayne_sobe.htm)
Woman being screamed at has OBE http://www.oberf.org/kim_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/kim_sobe.htm)
Man sitting on porch with friend has OBE http://www.oberf.org/david_s_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/david_s_sobe.htm)
Person attending concert has OBE http://www.oberf.org/onowa_v_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/onowa_v_sobe.htm)
Hospital patient walking down corridor has OBE http://www.oberf.org/william_b_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/william_b_sobe.htm)
Man receiving bad news has OBE http://www.oberf.org/shelly_k_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/shelly_k_sobe.htm)
Woman standing at father's funeral has OBE http://www.oberf.org/jen_c_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/jen_c_sobe.htm)
Woman using ladies room has OBE http://www.oberf.org/kathryn_w's_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/kathryn_w's_sobe.htm)
Man sitting in bar has OBE http://www.oberf.org/gary_m's_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/gary_m's_sobe.htm)
And the following are just too intriguing to omit; They include a woman who physically chased her own astral body, an astral body which chased its physical body, a spontaneous dual OBE shared by two people whilst standing and talking, a precognitive OBE, an OBEr who talked to her physical friend teleptahically, and finally an OBEr who split into two "astral consciousnesses":
Woman physically chases her Astral Body! http://www.oberf.org/dawn_k_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/dawn_k_sobe.htm)
Girl chases her physical body whilst OBE http://www.oberf.org/jewel_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/jewel_sobe.htm)
Two talking women have a shared simultaneous OBE http://www.oberf.org/jean_j_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/jean_j_sobe.htm)
Girl standing in baseball field has precognitive OBE http://www.oberf.org/carolyn_t_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/carolyn_t_sobe.htm)
Woman talks telepathically to her friend whilst OBE http://www.oberf.org/debi_s_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/debi_s_sobe.htm)
Person splits into two "selves" which whilst OBE http://www.oberf.org/lourens_m_sobe.htm (http://www.oberf.org/lourens_m_sobe.htm)
I'd really like to hear some sort of explanation for these using the focus level model. To date no such explanation has been provided on this board, even though I've mentioned it a few times. If no explanation is forthcoming, well that's fine. At least these should still provide some interesting reading for board members. You don't have to be conked out physically to OBE. Far from it.
I see them all as just metaphors... people describing the same things through their own individual perceptions.
The "mind split", for example, I recognize as a simple splitting of ones own awareness. Pointing each of those awarenesses in a different direction, yet directly experiencing both (or even more than two) at the same time. Being the chaser and the chasee, for example. One consciousness being perceived from two different awarenesses.
It's just how people choose to interpret the information/data that they're receiving.
Thanks Ryan, so if I understand you correctly you are saying that the mind split is in fact a split in focus so to speak, so an individual can have multiple focusses? If he chooses to call them separate consciousnesses then that is just purely semantics??????
Hallo catmeow
Great post. Thanx for the links. I have read many of those OBE accounts btw. OBERF (and NDERF) are very interesting sites.
OBEs that happen while the person is awake are rare and fascinating events. I personally have never had one but I am sure that they do happen occasionally. Sometimes they happen during times of severe stress and/or danger. Yet many such OBEs occur during normal activities for no apparent reason.
I too dislike the focus level 'paradigm'. Robert Monroe would have done better to stay with his original "Locale" classification types. The Locales were specific non-physical locations where a person could travel to during an OBE/AP. Focus levels are what I perceive to be some type of inner mental concentration level (or a level of perception). Actually focus levels tend to confuse me as I find it much easier to conceive of the consciousness (soul/spirit/etc) leaving the physical body and travelling to the various "Locales" (which include BSTs btw). As you may be able to tell from all this, I much prefer the simpler theories/explanations (even if they are somewhat old fashion and (maybe??) out of vogue).
Regards 8-)
Grey
Quote from: catmeow on July 25, 2011, 13:09:50
Thanks Ryan, so if I understand you correctly you are saying that the mind split is in fact a split in focus so to speak, so an individual can have multiple focusses? If he chooses to call them separate consciousnesses then that is just purely semantics??????
Sounds as good a reason as any. :)
As you said... and in my opinion, it's all semantics and metaphors of the individuals interpretations of what they've experienced.
When I first saw Frank Kepples focus model. I too was taking it as gospel as it makes perfect sense. Got your physical focus, got your subconcious focus.. then you have the "spirit world" focus. Then finally the "God" focus. Or collective conciousness.
But Frank also mentioned that these focus models are not layers on top of each other. They are like a rope, and interwoven. Plus he talked about the "phase". How everything is just "together".
For example, you can be in Focus 1. The physical, and see a ghost from Focus 3. People presume that it is the ghost which is entering into the physical. But perhaps its you, yourself with your mind splitting into the Astral?
But great post OP. And I wil read some of the links you posted.
I can relate a very small experience to the split mind effect.
Whilst half asleep. I knew I was half asleep in bed, but then I just imagined getting up, and tried to get up without using my muscles. Then it felt like I did. I could feel myself getting up, but i could also feel myself still laid on the bed at the same time. That was as far as it went unfortunately. There was no visual in that particular experience.
As the theory is, that we are multi dimensional beings, and we occupy ever dimension simultaneously. Perhaps its not a case of "focussing" on a particular reality. Perhaps its a matter of perceiving a particular reality?
Thanks Grey and Boom for the positive feedback. Grey I too am old fashioned, but that's really because I don't really think the focus model works. I think it requires a lot of curve-fitting to make it explain the observed facts.
OBERF and NDERF are great sites. They are worth a visit I think NDERF is the largest NDE study ever undertaken and is analysed in detail by Jeffrey Long in his excellent book "Evidence of the Afterlife":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/)
Thanks Ryan for the clarification. You seem to be talking about a split in awareness? Which isn't quite the same as a split in consciousness? A couple of observations:
1. Mind Split
When mind-split happens, the individual "I"s have independent trains of thought and typically are entirely unaware of each other. So this is not just a split in awareness (ie a "split in focus"). A split in awareness would be one consciousness having two simultaneous but different viewpoints (say an awareness of the astral and of the physical simultaneously). But a mind-split is actually two independent consciousnesses, two independent trains of thought, and two different viewpoints, operating simultaneously, and unaware of each other. It is entirely unlike a simple split in awareness (a "split in focus")?
In metaphorical terms, it's the difference between standing in one house and looking out of two different windows at the same time (split in focus), and standing in two entirely different houses at the same time and looking out of one window in each house (split in minds). A split in focus is the former and a split in minds is the latter. They are different things. Is this accomodated by the focus level model?
2. Need for a physical body
I'm puzzled as to why we should need a physical body in order to change focus to the physical world? Why is that? When our physical bodies die, we can no longer change focus to the physical. Yes we might be able to visit the RTZ from an astral viewpoint, but we can no longer interact with the physical world using a physical body. How does that fit into the focus model? Why can't a dead person "phase" into the physical world, assume a physical form and interact with the physical world?
Now someone will answer and say that advanced astral entities can do this, but as far as the 6.5 billion living people in the world today are concerned, we really DO NEED a living breathing physical body, allocated to us, to allow us to "focus in" on the physical world. This is the norm. Why would this need to be the norm? If it's all just a matter of vibrational level or focus then why would we need a living physical body of flesh and blood?
Just some thoughts. Reasons why I don't think the focus level model really works! :-)
Quote from: catmeow on July 26, 2011, 14:08:28
Thanks Ryan for the clarification. You seem to be talking about a split in awareness? Which isn't quite the same as a split in consciousness? A couple of observations:
1. Mind Split
When mind-split happens, the individual "I"s have independent trains of thought and typically are entirely unaware of each other. So this is not just a split in awareness (ie a "split in focus"). A split in awareness would be one consciousness having two simultaneous but different viewpoints (say an awareness of the astral and of the physical simultaneously). But a mind-split is actually two independent consciousnesses, two independent trains of thought, and two different viewpoints, operating simultaneously, and unaware of each other. It is entirely unlike a simple split in awareness (a "split in focus")?
I get what you're saying. I guess I just have no dividing line between those two ideas: Awareness and Consciousness
A split in awareness to me is the same as your split in consciousness as well... both are inclusive of the other in my little world. :)
They're both two (or more) separate "yous" (for lack of a better term)... each "you" can and will experience and perceive from their unique perspective.
QuoteIn metaphorical terms, it's the difference between standing in one house and looking out of two different windows at the same time (split in focus), and standing in two entirely different houses at the same time and looking out of one window in each house (split in minds). A split in focus is the former and a split in minds is the latter. They are different things. Is this accomodated by the focus level model?
Honestly, I don't have a specific answer for ya on this one... but I don't see why it couldn't. I've personally never experienced a split of that "kind", but I don't see why the focus model couldn't support it.
Quote2. Need for a physical body
I'm puzzled as to why we should need a physical body in order to change focus to the physical world? Why is that? When our physical bodies die, we can no longer change focus to the physical. Yes we might be able to visit the RTZ from an astral viewpoint, but we can no longer interact with the physical world using a physical body. How does that fit into the focus model? Why can't a dead person "phase" into the physical world, assume a physical form and interact with the physical world?
In my opinion, I agree with you... I don't see why it's necessary either to have a physical body, unless you wanted to interact "with" the physical reality and other physical beings, there's no need for one. Otherwise, you'll end up having what most people here call an OBE or an Etheric Projection. You can change your focus to this reality, but not focusing towards your physical body leaves you in that OBE state... wandering around your bedroom/house/city/etc.
I have my own personal theory that once our physical body "dies"... our consciousness' "tunnel connection" to this reality collapses and we're no longer able to physically interact here on the same scale that we could with a physical body. That's just more of a "thinking out loud" scenario than a working theory actually. LOL
QuoteNow someone will answer and say that advanced astral entities can do this, but as far as the 6.5 billion living people in the world today are concerned, we really DO NEED a living breathing physical body, allocated to us, to allow us to "focus in" on the physical world. This is the norm. Why would this need to be the norm? If it's all just a matter of vibrational level or focus then why would we need a living physical body of flesh and blood?
Just some thoughts. Reasons why I don't think the focus level model really works! :-)
There's the big question... "allocated to us". Which makes me wonder who's doing the allocating. LoL
As for the "if it's just a matter of vibrational level or focus"... I think it comes down to the rules that govern this particular reality frame and how our consciousnesses are able/allowed to interact with it.
Quote from: catmeow on July 25, 2011, 13:09:50
Thanks Ryan, so if I understand you correctly you are saying that the mind split is in fact a split in focus so to speak, so an individual can have multiple focusses? If he chooses to call them separate consciousnesses then that is just purely semantics??????
You have a choice to see something however you want to. I choose to see it as us being everywhere but, where we are consciously, we are unconscious everywhere else - that's not to say that we are not there! - But then again, my view is just a view and not necessarily the absolute truth. A particular phenomenon can be looked at from so many different angles...
The focus model can allow the multiple "Is". It's just that for some reason this waking world experience appears to be the main or primary one (at the moment). I think it is feasible that there are many "yous" in other physical realities or alternate universes. In infinity, there is bound to be an infinite number of universes exactly like this one and with exactly the same history. Then you get a bevy of different ones.
I posted this on Spiritual Forums quite recently:
Quote from: SummerlanderWell, string theory is our best attempt at a "theory of everything" and it predicts at least 10500 universes, each with different laws of physics. You might wonder what that number is about...well...there are an estimated 1025 grains of sand in the Sahara desert. Now what do you think?
It's a full-void if you ask me, and, considering the fact that such universes can be experienced physically if you are tuned into them, it is also likely that they stem from archetypal planes of existence...the metaphysical realm/unborn reality/the limbo where all possibilities manifest before they become what we call actual (which, if one puts it into perspective, are nothing but the ideas experienced on a grosser level).
I have discarded the word "astral" ages ago. It is no longer applicable to me. The wider reality is so much more than that simple concept. This is what my scientific knowledge and my personal experiences have shown me. Also, when we enter the Phase, experience can be personal, collective, or a mixture of both. It opens the doors to all sorts of possibilities too. Telepathy and precognition are just two doors available amongst a myriad. :cool:
If you ask me, I'd say that there is a vast and intricate system of consciousness and we, intrinsically, are not it - even though we identify with it at the utmost level (well, a portion of it). If you could take the consciousness system away from us, we'd become a "naked" awareness (rid of all forms, concepts, ideas and self). I'm not even sure if "awareness" is the appropriate word here. I think we wouldn't even be conscious if everything that defines the "I" is taken away. The "I" ceases to be if there are no points of reference.
One almost starts to get a picture of why consciousness is so necessary. 8-)
QuoteYou have a choice to see something however you want to. I choose to see it as us being everywhere but, where we are consciously, we are unconscious everywhere else - that's not to say that we are not there!
Summerlander put into words what I was struggling to express- it's similar to the conscious/subconscious thing that happens with patients who have the corpus callosum of their brains cut, and have 'two minds in one', one unaware of the other, something that always blows scientists away- Complete dissociation with each other, but both equally there.
Yes...just like a subatomic particle being in two places at the same time...but on a macro level... :-D
Quote from: Ryan
I get what you're saying. I guess I just have no dividing line between those two ideas: Awareness and Consciousness
A split in awareness to me is the same as your split in consciousness as well... both are inclusive of the other in my little world.
They're both two (or more) separate "yous" (for lack of a better term)... each "you" can and will experience and perceive from their unique perspective.
So in your semantics awareness=consciousness. Also you agree that we can have multiple (or "split") awareness.. This is equivalent to what I am saying when I talk about the mind split. If you are willing to go one tiny step further and say that in your semantics focus=consciousness, then we are 100% agreed on point 1.
Quote from: Ryan
In my opinion, I agree with you... I don't see why it's necessary either to have a physical body, unless you wanted to interact "with" the physical reality and other physical beings, there's no need for one. Otherwise, you'll end up having what most people here call an OBE or an Etheric Projection. You can change your focus to this reality, but not focusing towards your physical body leaves you in that OBE state... wandering around your bedroom/house/city/etc.
But it IS necessary to have a physical body to interact fully at the physical level. This is where, for me, the focus level paradigm breaks. According to the focus model all that is required to interact fully at any focus level is a shift in focus to that level. No "body" is required. But to interact fully at the physical level, a permanent physical vehicle is needed. Otherwise we can't touch, be seen or heard. Why? It doesn't fit well with the model. That's really the crux of my objection.
Quote from: Ryan
I have my own personal theory that once our physical body "dies"... our consciousness' "tunnel connection" to this reality collapses and we're no longer able to physically interact here on the same scale that we could with a physical body. That's just more of a "thinking out loud" scenario than a working theory actually.
That's more than a "thinking out loud scenario" it's actually a good idea. But it's also a "special case". Unfortunately the focus level model is all about simplicity and no special cases. This is the appeal of the model. But it breaks down at the physical level.
Quote from: Ryan
As for the "if it's just a matter of vibrational level or focus"... I think it comes down to the rules that govern this particular reality frame and how our consciousnesses are able/allowed to interact with it.
I see what you are saying. But once again, it means that the physical level is a "special case", and the focus level model is all about simplicity and no special cases.
Quote from: Ryan
There's the big question... "allocated to us". Which makes me wonder who's doing the allocating.
Me too. The "allocating" must be done for every single living creature, man, bird, beast, fish, and insect, even down to the amoeba level. That's a toughy.... it's a big ask to comprehend. But then the universe is a big ask to comprehend.
Found your answers interesting Ryan, but I still have problems with Point 2.
Quote from: Summerlander
Well, string theory is our best attempt at a "theory of everything" and it predicts at least 10500 universes, each with different laws of physics. You might wonder what that number is about...well...there are an estimated 1025 grains of sand in the Sahara desert.
I hope you credited New Scientist for that one! I read it from cover to cover every week. You should also read the August issue of Scientific American "Questions about the Multiverse" (if you haven't already). It explains the different multiverse theories much better than last weeks copy of New Scientist.
Quote from: Summerlander
One almost starts to get a picture of why consciousness is so necessary
I think it's the only thing we can be reasonably sure actually exists.
Quote from: catmeow on July 26, 2011, 20:34:18
But it IS necessary to have a physical body to interact fully at the physical level. This is where, for me, the focus level paradigm breaks. According to the focus model all that is required to interact fully at any focus level is a shift in focus to that level. No "body" is required. But to interact fully at the physical level, a permanent physical vehicle is needed. Otherwise we can't touch, be seen or heard. Why? It doesn't fit well with the model. That's really the crux of my objection.
This would seem to be the only reality (between physical vs non-physical) where a "body" has to be setup prior to you fully experiencing it.
The focus model is more a model for non-physical reality... as it does almost a zero job in explaining physical reality.
QuoteThat's more than a "thinking out loud scenario" it's actually a good idea. But it's also a "special case". Unfortunately the focus level model is all about simplicity and no special cases. This is the appeal of the model. But it breaks down at the physical level.
It's one of the reasons I don't subscribe to any focus model anymore. :)
In any case, I don't actually see any reason for these to be special cases though.
QuoteFound your answers interesting Ryan, but I still have problems with Point 2.
All just purely speculation on my part. :)
Quote from: Boom on July 26, 2011, 09:03:07
For example, you can be in Focus 1. The physical, and see a ghost from Focus 3. People presume
that it is the ghost which is entering into the physical. But perhaps its you, yourself with your mind
splitting into the Astral?
When you see a ghost from F 23, while being in C1, it is not a mind split, but something else,
perhaps you could call it a Focus Overlay experience.
A mind split is when you have two or more split consciousnesses, who are aware each on their
own. At rare occasions these two (or more) consciousnesses can become aware of each
others as well, as Dr. van Eeden and RB have described it.
Quote from: catmeow on July 26, 2011, 20:34:18But it IS necessary to have a physical body to interact fully at the physical level. This is where, for me, the focus level paradigm breaks. According to the focus model all that is required to interact fully at any focus level is a shift in focus to that level. No "body" is required. But to interact fully at the physical level, a permanent physical vehicle is needed. Otherwise we can't touch, be seen or heard. Why? It doesn't fit well with the model. That's really the crux of my objection.
So maybe I understood it wrong all the time. I thought focus levels are just the channel we switch to / the mode how we concentrate on specific environments (call them worlds, planes, dimensions, realities or whatever) with specific rulesets regarding energy, matter, mind interactions, etc.
I regarded the 'body' (physical or not) as part of this environment. Not part of 'the self' or the consciousness "using" it. Strictly speaking, a physical body is thus as 'alien' as other material objects, such as a car or a house in this view.
It is an object to be used. I thought this was also said within the focus level 'dogma'. Same goes for 'bodies' we 'use' in other 'environments' (astral, mental ... or whatever).
(I could also say instead of 'use' we create them in the first place. Btw, I also believe by analogy that we had a say in creating 'our' physical body here before birth, and to some degree we still do, but that's quite another story now.)
If this is not the case (body ≠ environment) in the focus-level methodolgy then it is not worth anything to me.
Quote from: Pauli2 on July 27, 2011, 05:32:38
A mind split is when you have two or more split consciousnesses, who are aware each on their
own. At rare occasions these two (or more) consciousnesses can become aware of each
others as well, as Dr. van Eeden and RB have described it.
That's how I see it and it was in fact RB who introduced me to the concept. His detailed description of the mind-split was ground-breaking, and as someone said, worth the price of the book alone. Where does Van Eeden describe the mind split?
Quote from: Volgerle on July 27, 2011, 07:49:47
So maybe I understood it wrong all the time. I thought focus levels are just the channel we switch to / the mode how we concentrate on specific environments (call them worlds, planes, dimensions, realities or whatever) with specific rulesets regarding energy, matter, mind interactions, etc.
You have it right Volgerle. My issue is with the "specific rulesets" ie the need for a pre-prepared physical body, its limited usability (it ages and dies) etc. The other levels don't have these specific restrictions. I
suspect that the physical body has its own "consciousness" and this dies along with the physical body. This is based on the case histories I have seen, not just on OBERF but in other studies too. I think it's more complicated than just changing focus. I really do. But that's my personal opinion. Many disagree. :-)
You wouldn't happen to have any of those case studies on hand, would you? :)
I'll look. I'm thinking of cases published in Celia Green's 1968 book "Out-of-the-Body Experiences". I need to read it and reproduce the cases. I'm not sure if the book is in print. It is a truly excellent book which analysed about 300 cases. She also wrote a book (same year) called "Lucid Dreams", same sort of analysis. But it's very late right now in the UK!
I've been curious lately to read how other people interpret something compared to how I interpret it.
Thanks, I'll check that one out. :)
Looky what I found
http://www.celiagreen.com/
http://www.celiagreen.com/aphorisms.html
http://www.spiritwatch.ca/interview_with_celia_green.htm
And,
http://www.kktanhp.com/OBE_.htm
& scroll down to "Survey by Celia Green on OBE" in Purple
She wrote the OBE book in 1968 so it may be hard to find, but she also has a blog.
Oh outstanding find CFT ! :-)
The "Survey" link does give a good summary of her findings. I was going to post these myself, but now I don't have to.
I have both her 1968 books. Here they are in the "used" market on amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Lucid-Dreams-Celia-Green/dp/0900076003/ (http://www.amazon.com/Lucid-Dreams-Celia-Green/dp/0900076003/)
http://www.amazon.com/Experiences-Proceedings-Institute-Psychophysical-Research/dp/0900076011/ (http://www.amazon.com/Experiences-Proceedings-Institute-Psychophysical-Research/dp/0900076011/)
If you can borrow a copy from your library, I would highly recommend it. They do give a good analysis of the experience. Most people on this board experience LDs and OBEs from the WILD approach, but this gives you only one particular type of experience. This study gives you an idea of the whole spectrum of the OBE experience.
According to Celia Green's study, of those respondents who had more than 1 experience these occurred whilst they were:
Lying (66.4%)
Sitting (20.2%)
Standing still (3.4%)
Walking (6.7%)
Indeterminate (3.3%)
So 10% of regular OBERs had their OBEs while standing or walking! Go figure...
From one of the links CFT gave:
Quote from: Celia Green
OBEs are probably the most dramatic in appearance of the metachoric exper-iences, and they happen in a very wide variety of circumstances. There is a definite group which happens in situations which you might expect to be fairly high in arous-al, but they would not normally be excessively stressful, though you would expect a person to be adrenalised. Examples are a person giving a lecture, a dentist extracting a tooth, a person taking a driving test or getting married. We have cases of people watching themselves from the outside in all of these circumstances and several sim-ilar ones
Quote from: catmeow on July 27, 2011, 11:24:16
Where does Van Eeden describe the mind split?
In van Eeden's '
A Study of Dreams' on page 447 of
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (http://www.lucidity.com/vanEeden.html), Vol. 26, 1913.
He writes about "
double recollection of the two bodies" and "
observation of a double memory".
But others may have been describing mind split at any earlier time.
The multiple I's do work with Monroe's focus model. Your consciousness exists in this world and the astral simultaneously. It's just that your focus is on this world right now. These "multiple I" incidents sound like a matter of being focused on more than one focus level, and from there it's a matter of perception.
I'm not saying that the focus model is the gospel truth or anything, but since it's the system that makes the most sense to me, I feel it is necessary to address this.
I believe that Robert Bruce reported a few experiences where he could see his astral double, and his astral double could see his physical body, and it was overall an very confusing and unpleasant experience. Unfortunately I find that Bruce's notion of the astral is too steeped in new age superstition and religion to warrant serious consideration.
Quote from: Pauli2
In van Eeden's 'A Study of Dreams' on page 447 of Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 26, 1913.
He writes about "double recollection of the two bodies" and "observation of a double memory".
Thanks Pauli very much. "Double recollections" could refer to simple "dual awareness" but "observation of a double memory" sounds more like dual consciousness.
Edit: I have read much of the link you gave, and it seems to me that what Van Eeden is describing is "dual awareness" not "mind split". He describes waking up from a lucid dream and feeling both the sensations of his dream body and his physical body, feeling both "bodies" at the same time. This is different from the mind split I am talking about, which occurs when the physical body goes on with its merry duty, whilst the astral body goes on with a different activity, and both are unaware (generally) of each other. Excellent link though, Pauli.
Quote from: ayearhasgone
The multiple I's do work with Monroe's focus model. Your consciousness exists in this world and the astral simultaneously. It's just that your focus is on this world right now. These "multiple I" incidents sound like a matter of being focused on more than one focus level, and from there it's a matter of perception.
Makes sense.
Quote from: ayearhasgone
Unfortunately I find that Bruce's notion of the astral is too steeped in new age superstition and religion to warrant serious consideration.
Surely that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. You would dismiss all of the early literature on OBEs.
Quote from: catmeow on July 28, 2011, 19:51:56
Surely that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. You would dismiss all of the early literature on OBEs.
The problem is, you take your beliefs with you into the astral, where they take form. It's why people who have NDE's have differing ideas on what heaven or hell look like. Bruce entered the astral with pre-conceived notions of new age thinking and eastern mysticism, so the "planes" he supposedly encountered along the way could very well be nothing more than belief constructs and/or thought forms.
Monroe approached the issue with an objective, fact-finding mindset, which makes him (IMHO) more trustworthy.
Honestly, I'm really only interested in modern-day dissections of people's non-physical journeys.
I already do dismiss most, if not all of the early literature... I kinda view it as completely useless material really.
Just personal opinion though. :)
Quote from: ayearhasgone on July 28, 2011, 20:31:18
The problem is, you take your beliefs with you into the astral, where they take form.
Fair nuff, but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand. His description of the mind-split is by far the clearest and most instructive I have seen. So that makes me think that any other ideas he has are also worth listening to.