Commentary thread for tim's "NDE's" thread

Perhaps they did have the right.

The right to force people to do things against their will?

The right to force people to do things against their will?

Yes it happens everyday in our world. Sometimes because other people know what is best for us and sometimes because that’s the law. Doesn’t it?

Something crossed my mind yesterday while watching a TV show called "The Leftovers" which has some scenes of a "dead" man returning to life. Of course, I started thinking about NDE accounts and wondered about resuscitation. At some point in the typical NDE account, a decision is made to return to the body. Meanwhile, in the cardiac care unit, a team is fervently trying to get the heart started again. Somehow and at some point the decision and the resuscitation efforts have to combine to start the heart again so, what occurred to me is how this spirit/body coordination works. Are we to assume that, had the decision been different, the heart would never have started despite the best efforts of the medical team? Or, conversely, had that team given up and left the room, would the heart have started again without assistance?

To my mind, this indicates a kind of inevitability: the heart was always going to be restarted in that manner and the decision was illusory. In other words, those helpers on the other side knew all too well that this was a temporary visit. Another possibility - in line with the idea of creating our own reality - is that the choice is between two probable outcomes. So either is valid and both are played out.

Something crossed my mind yesterday while watching a TV show called "The Leftovers" which has some scenes of a "dead" man returning to life. Of course, I started thinking about NDE accounts and wondered about resuscitation. At some point in the typical NDE account, a decision is made to return to the body. Meanwhile, in the cardiac care unit, a team is fervently trying to get the heart started again. Somehow and at some point the decision and the resuscitation efforts have to combine to start the heart again so, what occurred to me is how this spirit/body coordination works. Are we to assume that, had the decision been different, the heart would never have started despite the best efforts of the medical team? Or, conversely, had that team given up and left the room, would the heart have started again without assistance?

To my mind, this indicates a kind of inevitability: the heart was always going to be restarted in that manner and the decision was illusory. In other words, those helpers on the other side knew all too well that this was a temporary visit. Another possibility - in line with the idea of creating our own reality - is that the choice is between two probable outcomes. So either is valid and both are played out.

Hm that’s an interesting point. Perhaps there is a point beyond which return isn’t possible and that once  a person has decided to go beyond that point, or some other agency has decided it, death is inevitable. Perhaps up to that point while there is  still some sort of connection, return is possible?

Something crossed my mind yesterday while watching a TV show called "The Leftovers" which has some scenes of a "dead" man returning to life. Of course, I started thinking about NDE accounts and wondered about resuscitation. At some point in the typical NDE account, a decision is made to return to the body. Meanwhile, in the cardiac care unit, a team is fervently trying to get the heart started again. Somehow and at some point the decision and the resuscitation efforts have to combine to start the heart again so, what occurred to me is how this spirit/body coordination works. Are we to assume that, had the decision been different, the heart would never have started despite the best efforts of the medical team? Or, conversely, had that team given up and left the room, would the heart have started again without assistance?

To my mind, this indicates a kind of inevitability: the heart was always going to be restarted in that manner and the decision was illusory. In other words, those helpers on the other side knew all too well that this was a temporary visit. Another possibility - in line with the idea of creating our own reality - is that the choice is between two probable outcomes. So either is valid and both are played out.

Interesting ideas.

The apparent synchronisation between physical and non-physical worlds may not be inevitable. Resuscitation does not always succeed. There are other outcomes such as patient on long-term life support or in a coma state. Perhaps it succeeds where the consciousness chooses (or is persuaded) to return. Or in cases where resuscitation attempts are abandoned, but the patient spontaneously returns to life soon afterwards, that could be a result of a conscious decision to return.

One other aspect not mentioned here, sometimes the people remaining on Earth, whether family or partner or even children yet unborn, may also play a role. Where there are strong ties between people, that may sway the outcome. At least that seems to be how it is expressed in the NDE narrative.  It always seems as though we must express these things in terms of 'maybe', human existence resists being constrained by our descriptions.

I'm reminded of Anita Moorjani. She was one of those cases which should, by all medical opinion at the time, have ended in her death. Her recovery is one of those which defy explanation - even compared to the most unexpected beneficiaries of spontaneous remission (despite what the skeptics claim - as ever).

Anita's story indicates that the body does as the spirit decides which raises the question about people who seem to have been "taken" before their time. Children especially. One can only conclude that the grand reincarnational "big picture" is beyond what makes sense to us from our restricted perspective. Long lives, short lives, temporarily interrupted lives, parts of life in a coma, etc., - somehow these all add up to a soul's journey.

Yes it happens everyday in our world. Sometimes because other people know what is best for us and sometimes because that’s the law. Doesn’t it?

That's not a right, that's a capability. Laws are little more than opinions backed by martial power. Don't believe me? go check out what's legal in half of the Middle East and Africa. Doesn't matter how widely held any particular opinion is, it's still just an opinion. Rights do not exist in any objective form. That's the point of my statement, what made them think they had the right to do that? He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it. Trying to invent some reasoning that it's all part of some divine plan or for the good of his soul journey or whatever would just be dishonest.

I've been shoved back in my body more than a few times. As far as I'm concerned the people who've forced me back, usually violently, cannot have any legitimate reason to do so. Besides, in some cases some've made it quite clear that their reasons are malicious. So I suppose I do care about the issue a bit more than other people might.

[Laird]

He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it.

It sounds like you're suggesting that he had the right to have his choice respected and to not be forced to do something he didn't want to do. Right?

That's not a right, that's a capability. Laws are little more than opinions backed by martial power. Don't believe me? go check out what's legal in half of the Middle East and Africa. Doesn't matter how widely held any particular opinion is, it's still just an opinion. Rights do not exist in any objective form. That's the point of my statement, what made them think they had the right to do that? He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it. Trying to invent some reasoning that it's all part of some divine plan or for the good of his soul journey or whatever would just be dishonest.

I've been shoved back in my body more than a few times. As far as I'm concerned the people who've forced me back, usually violently, cannot have any legitimate reason to do so. Besides, in some cases some've made it quite clear that their reasons are malicious. So I suppose I do care about the issue a bit more than other people might.

I agree that’s a capability. I think we’d probably agree that Laws are what grant, create or remove rights, whether they are fair or not. So in a sense rights do exist as a product of laws which are ultimately backed up with some sort authority, which usually includes at least the potential for force or compulsion of some kind don’t they? But I can see that they don’t necessarily exist outside that kind of framework. Or have I misunderstood?

I’d certainly agree that laws don’t seem to be consistent across our world. Although perhaps certain basic concepts of what people have a right or entitlement to expect are generally enshrined in international and human rights law, even if they aren’t followed everywhere.

I can also see why a person or any living thing may be forced, against their will, to accept a course of action (though I’d also say it is to be avoided if at all possible). The motive seems to be to be the measure of it and the person acting must have the capability as you say.

Whether someone has the right to do it is determined by the Law isn’t it? That law may of course vary from place and I’d agree that capability doesn’t imply right. For example if a person has the capability to enter my house without permission I have a right to ask them to leave, or force them to leave if I have the capability don’t I? I would be acting within the law. The law creates the right for me to own my house, control who enters it and to use reasonable measures to enforce that right (but it isn’t unconditional). If I act outside the law there may be consequences as I may have infringed that person’s rights eg to life. So I’m not sure I get this “rights don’t exist” angle.

Thinking of the situations we’re discussing though I wonder if there is some authority by which the two acts are carried out. The first one, appears to have been carried out with good motives - ie it was necessary and the person would not comply. Sometimes other people do know what’s best for us. Although it would have been better to gain agreement, perhaps there was some urgency that meant it had to be forced upon them. In other words perhaps it was for their own good and they were either not in the right frame of mind to make the decision or not in possession of sufficient information. I don’t know how the person felt when reflecting on it later.

In your own situation it sounds different - did you get a chance to ask them why they thought they had the right to do it? Is it possible you were somewhere you had no right to be according to some Law you were not aware of?  Or were you simply unlucky and strayed into the wrong company (in which case perhaps they broke some law and may face the consequences).

I find the subject very interesting and can’t say I have an answer.