New book by Peter Fenwick - "Shining Light on Transcendence ..."

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - the full title of Peter Fenwick's book is "Shining Light on Transcendence: The unconventional journey of a Neuroscientist."

From the website of the publisher, White Crow Books, which also offers a sample chapter:

What is consciousness? How does it relate to the brain, to the mind?  Does it even extend beyond them? And if so, might those experiences — telepathy, extrasensory perception, near death experiences — be called ‘paranormal’ because we can’t explain them by any normal means?

Anything with a firm belief structure, whether it is science or religious faith, limits experimentation and a free spirit of enquiry.  I wanted to find a synthesis between these two fields of experience, the measurable and the immeasurable.  And it seemed to me that the best – indeed, the only way I could find out more was by finding people who had such immeasurable experiences and studying them.

A few years ago a friend introduced me to a philosopher, Alain Forget, who had a remarkable ability to give energy. During this ‘energy-giving’ process my friend had been aware of light radiating from him. Scientific curiosity made me want to study the phenomena myself, and I found myself, reluctantly at times,  exploring my own inner conflicts under AFs teaching.

Gradually, as I fused science with the metaphysical, I realised that this journey had changed me and that much of what I had thought about myself was not based on reality. 

This book tells that story.

I will add that book to my boycott list. Cyrus Kirkpatrick exposed Fenwick on youtube. Fenwick supports the oneness philosophy.

I will add that book to my boycott list. Cyrus Kirkpatrick exposed Fenwick on youtube. Fenwick supports the oneness philosophy.

This isn't my main area of interest at all, so no doubt there's a lot I'm unaware of.

Maybe it would be helpful to explain in what respect you think Kirkpatrick exposed Fenwick (perhaps with a link to Youtube), and what the "oneness philosophy" is.

This isn't my main area of interest at all, so no doubt there's a lot I'm unaware of.

Maybe it would be helpful to explain in what respect you think Kirkpatrick exposed Fenwick (perhaps with a link to Youtube), and what the "oneness philosophy" is.

I mean beliefs like this:

The theory further states that all life as we perceive it is actually one life (because God has only one son, sometimes called the collective sonship), dreaming of separation and fragmentation.

Ultimately, this means the end of individuality and of the ego.

A Course in Miracles

That video has been removed, but there has been discussion about this topic on this forum:
On Fenwick

I think the starting point has to always be the evidence. One of the reasons I like Fenwick is that he has accumulated lots of first-hand data and has a wealth of experience. I find it of value when he details some of these accounts he's received.

As for his views, I tend to take them lightly, for me, he's a likeable person, I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't let that serve as an obstacle. On the other hand I probably wouldn't buy his book, as hearing someone else expound on their theories is somewhat dull unless one happens to resonate with them.

On a practical, data or evidence-based level, I find Fenwick goes a little far in extrapolating his ideas. Perhaps because of his own advanced years, as well as the subject-matter we are discussing, he tends to talk about the process of death and the time leading up to it. The difficulty I have is Fenwick has described people having foreknowledge of their own approaching death, perhaps one or two years in advance, and various landmarks in terms of the thoughts or ideas they will receive along the way. I have to say, from the people I have known who now sadly are not with us, this doesn't seem to be the case, at least in general.

Nevertheless, I still like Fenwick.

I will add that book to my boycott list. Cyrus Kirkpatrick exposed Fenwick on youtube. Fenwick supports the oneness philosophy.

Fenwick and his wife are bed-rock supporters of modern research to observe mind as separate from brain.  My opinion is very positive of their life-work.

I am confused, as oneness usually refers to the view defining the Christian deity as a single person - not three personalities.  You seem to be implying that that "oneness" describes a singularity of human consciousness in a Zen outlook (as Peter describes at length).

Can you clarify?

Fenwick and his wife are bed-rock supporters of modern research to observe mind as separate from brain.  My opinion is very positive of their life-work.

I am confused, as oneness usually refers to the view defining the Christian deity as a single person - not three personalities.  You seem to be implying that that "oneness" describes a singularity of human consciousness in a Zen outlook (as Peter describes at length).

Can you clarify?

I meant New Age, Advaita Vedanta, A Course in Miracles etc.

Beliefs like these:

Rather than reincarnation, another afterlife belief found among New Agers holds that an individual's soul returns to a "universal energy" on bodily death.

New Age

Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.

Advaita Vedanta

Ultimately, this means the end of individuality and of the ego.

A Course in Miracles

I discussed about this topic with Eric Newhill on Skeptiko. He described those kind of beliefs very well, but he used the term "blobbist":

"Blobbist" = You know...those that say the goal is to totally lose one's individuality and merge with the One Mind, never to return to individuality.

That's the core of the ideology.

Usually it is paired with the notion that "God" is also a blob of sorts. To a Blobbist, God is just everything and everything is good. The purpose of the illusion of the experience of being an individual is merely God playing with himself to have adventures. There is no moral imperative or purpose because it's all God and God is good. Even Hitler was just God playing hide and seek with himself. We're all God. A pebble is God. A could is God. A lizard is God, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Alex Tsakiris, Four Questions About the Future of Skeptiko |414|

I meant New Age, Advaita Vedanta, A Course in Miracles etc.

Beliefs like these:
New Age

Ultimately, this means the end of individuality and of the ego.

I think it is interesting that there is a certain different partial parallel between Fenwick's views and some other New Age channels' view of "survival" and the afterlife, in particular Ron Scolastico's. The following paraphrases a couple of posts of mine in another thread (nos. 12 & 13 at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-f...ess?page=2). It is a possible model, that concludes that on the issue of whether the physical personality and ego survive physical death the answer may be nuanced, both yes and no. Mostly that the human personality and ego are ultimately temporary, but in a different way.

There could be an inherent "soul personality" that is relatively undistortedly manifested in the person when there are no extremely adverse conditions such as brain damage, serious genetic defects, childhood abuse and extreme poverty. Conversely, the "soul personality" may be severely distorted when such adverse conditions do happen. At death, the human personality experience progressively opens up to realize its true nature as a soul. NDEs are just the very beginning of this process, truncated by return to the body. In this process at physical death the human personality never quite loses it's sense that "I am me". But also, in this process the distortions created by the previous physical life are relegated to the soul memory of that last earth life. So, the bottom line is, with this conceptual structure the unique human personality when considered as a whole is unfortunately just temporary to the physical life.

At death this human personality greatly modified by the physical lifetime goes through a process of expansion into soul consciousness that necessarily involves relegating much of the physical personality accruals into soul memory. The newly ended physical personality is not wiped out, but is relegated to merely supplementing the vastly greater soul personality.

There would be no absolutely human personal afterlife in that sense. That also actually might be a relief in one way, because it would mean there would be for example no paranoid schizophrenic spirits wandering around in the afterlife.

Mediumistic communications seemingly coming from the deceased personality would then mainly be either from the temporarily still surviving but not yet merged and opened up human personality, or from the soul assuming the guise of the departed personality in order to help and reassure the grieving loved one.

At death this human personality greatly modified by the physical lifetime goes through a process of expansion into soul consciousness that necessarily involves relegating much of the physical personality accruals into soul memory. The newly ended physical personality is not wiped out, but is relegated to merely supplementing the vastly greater soul personality.

I'd add a personal view - one where I don't have all the answers, only some ideas.  I'm mentioned past-lives and reincarnation several times on this forum. This is reflected in some NDE accounts, where during the experience the person becomes aware of several or many past lives. At that point they are still very much entangled with the current physical Earth life, and indeed resume it, possibly somewhat transformed, on returning to the body after the NDE.

This inevitably must lead to the question, after death, which of these many lives is the real, actual person? My only answer is "I don't know". though I have suggested "All of them and none of them". This may sound unsatisfactory, but it is the words which are the problem, my meaning in my own mind is less contradictory. One way I've described this previously is that each life may be like a segment of an orange, contributing to the whole. But that picture implies a distinct delineation between each life while I'm thinking more of an underlying continuity which runs through the whole, this is not limited by the smallness (or even the greatness) of any one Earth life, but is something more permanent, which outlasts them all.

Once one starts to think in these terms, then this is a different territory than the one with which we are familiar. Here I think the various schools of thought each follow their own ideas as to what it may mean.

When I mention different schools of thought, I'd suggest some are the product of rational or reasoned thought, while others are the product of direct experience. Different people will find themselves more at home with one or other of these approaches.

Here's a review of the book by Robert A. Charman for the SPR:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/shinin...er-fenwick