Dec 12th: Kastrup vs Woerlee

Live in approx 21 hours...

Quite an interesting video. 

It seems to me that there will be ongoing fundamental differences of opinion between Woerlee and Kastrup, but I found this conversation somewhat uplifting. Woerlee seems to be a ‘nicer’ person than I had thought him before, he seemed more arrogant before I heard him speak. 

I think the ‘anecdotal’ evidence that Kastrup gave about his girlfriend while on holiday in Germany should be given far more weight that such things are presently given. I found the admin guy slightly out of his depth.

The moderator Darren Mac has interviewed Woerlee on two other occasions. From what I've watched/listened of him, I think he (Darren) was pretty good, especially when it comes to remaining calm and composed. He's also interviewed Jan Holden (twice now) among others. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gJPuPvQZwM (on memory and parapsychology)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuHVme4Qrfk (on Pam Reynolds...for the upteenth time :/)

(Edited to clarify who I was referring to!)

The moderator Darren Mac has interviewed Woerlee on two other occasions. From what I've watched/listened of him, I think he's pretty good, especially when it comes to remaining calm and composed.

Which of the two are you praising here? "He" could refer to either participant?

Which of the two are you praising here? "He" could refer to either participant?

Oh I was referring to Darren, sorry. Not much of a fan of Woerlee to say the least. 

I sympathise with Darren, given that his 'motivations' for this were/are the same as mine in many ways.

Oh I was referring to Darren, sorry. Not much of a fan of Woerlee to say the least. 

I sympathise with Darren, given that his 'motivations' for this were/are the same as mine in many ways.

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking a little of a comment I read elsewhere that Woerlee came across better (as a person) than sometimes he does in print. That is quite separate of course from agreeing with any statements or opinions he holds. Often on this and similar forums people have strong and perhaps irreconcilable disagreements with one another, but mostly I think if we met in some social or work-related situation, we might get along pretty well, and have a laugh together.

But yes, Woerlee's views are not something I have much sympathy with.

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking a little of a comment I read elsewhere that Woerlee came across better (as a person) than sometimes he does in print. That is quite separate of course from agreeing with any statements or opinions he holds. Often on this and similar forums people have strong and perhaps irreconcilable disagreements with one another, but mostly I think if we met in some social or work-related situation, we might get along pretty well, and have a laugh together.

But yes, Woerlee's views are not something I have much sympathy with.

That’s what I was getting at really. When I’ve read Woerlee he doesn’t sound like someone who likes dogs and has a sense of humour. 

I can largely overlook different opinions about things when people are basically decent. So he’s ignorant when it comes to NDEs , is it really that important? It might be, I’m not sure. I blow hot & cold. 

That’s what I was getting at really. When I’ve read Woerlee he doesn’t sound like someone who likes dogs and has a sense of humour. 

I can largely overlook different opinions about things when people are basically decent. So he’s ignorant when it comes to NDEs , is it really that important? It might be, I’m not sure. I blow hot & cold. 

Sometimes it seems to me that life is too short to fret too much about such things. On a personal level, I think we can take some meaning from them, but as to whether someone else agrees with us, that's much less important, to me at least.

I'm picturing too many times historically, and indeed right now at this moment, where one person or group has tried to enforce a belief on others, even to the point of death. Some of Thomas Hardy's novels revolve around the severity of taking beliefs so seriously that it causes harm. I mention Hardy because I'm not talking about the more obvious brutality which is expressed through great violence, but just the little things in apparently civilised and respectable ways of life, which can be devastating in their own way.

I'm not of the view that having moved on from those days, that things are automatically better. In my opinion, it's always up to those currently living to rediscover fresh ways of expressing compassion.

That’s what I was getting at really. When I’ve read Woerlee he doesn’t sound like someone who likes dogs and has a sense of humour. 

I can largely overlook different opinions about things when people are basically decent. So he’s ignorant when it comes to NDEs , is it really that important? It might be, I’m not sure. I blow hot & cold. 

Hi, Stan, Woerlee does like dogs. I've had many conversations with him (via email) and he is definitely an animal lover. 

And with regard to NDE's, he is quite knowledgeable in general. But he also selectively alters facts to suit his own worldview. I watched the recent debate with Kastrup and although Darren Mac deserves great credit for getting them together, as far as I could see, nothing much was achieved. NDE's and the appropriate cases are not on Kastrup's radar, as far as I can tell, but that's okay.

NDE's and the appropriate cases are not on Kastrup's radar, as far as I can tell, but that's okay.

I have to admit that while I do admire Kastrup's advocacy it does feel a bit odd to have him being a public advocate.

After all NDEs, especially veridical cases, seem to suggest some of his Idealist ideas are wrong:

-- The Life Review suggests we are individual souls with individual wills, rather than playing out the subjective PoVs of the One Will.

-- The meeting with the dead, especially when they were unknown or were not known to have died, suggests we do not get absorbed into the Ur-Mind.