Mike: Mystical traditions have discouraged cultivation of egoic interest in psi, as you say. Some, e.g. some Buddhist schools, also discourage non-egoic involvement, because, they say, psi experiences in NPMR are no more real than everyday PMR. I don't know whether they really believe that, and if they do whether it's just a philosophical position, or a practical safeguard meant to shield people from experiences such as Toby's.
Tom: When “they say, psi experiences in NPMR are no more real than everyday PMR,“ they are absolutely correct. Do they also suggest avoiding PMR experience? Why not if they are essentially equivalent? The point is that experience is the provider of learning opportunities, a catalyst for personal growth — it is the experience of interaction that drives consciousness evolution. I suggest that “they“ go find an uninhabited cave and sit in it, that way they will confuse fewer people. If experience in one reality frame is valuable because of the interaction that can take place there, then why wouldn't experience in a different reality frame offering an entirely dissimilar set of interactions be just as valuable in its own way? One would learn different types of things, have different opportunities and different challenges in each frame. If one can handle it productively, implementing parallel but mutually reinforcing growth paths sounds like a plus to me — if one cannot handle it productively, then there is justification for discouraging an attempt to do so.
Mike: You are convinced by your experiences, in a way that I have not been able to be convinced by mine.
Tom: That is exactly as it should be. All experience is subjective, thus "Proof" must be in the eye (awareness generated by experience) of the beholder. Because consciousness is personal, experience is personal, and thus “Proof“ is personal. There is no, can be no, direct physical proof of nonphysical (consciousness) phenomena — although there can be indirect (e.g., statistical) proof). The subsystem cannot logically describe the system. The tiny little piece called a minor subset cannot prove or disprove the content of the entire set. Denying that the complete set exists (or that it has content that is greater than what exists within the tiny little subset) because the content of the complete set cannot be derived from the limited content of the subset is illogical — and obviously so. The common belief that Psi (nonphysical) phenomena do not exist because they cannot be scientifically (physically) proven —is irrational nonsense even though it represents a common belief of the majority. I have no personal experience of psi, thus Psi (nonphysical) phenomena may or may not exist since conventional hard science (physical verification) is theoretically unable to directly prove or disprove its existence — that is NOT an illogical statement even though it is a bit naive and not exactly true.
Mike: Having been told “go away and don't come back“, as you say, that may have been an intended effect of my interaction with NPMR. So I really shouldn't take up any more of your bandwidth. Thanks all the same. I really enjoyed MBT, and will reread it.
Tom: That you were told to go away by one individual or one group of individuals in one very specific circumstance has nothing whatsoever to do with what you should do or attempt to do with the rest of your existence. That’s like: “somebody disagreed with me so I will never speak again“ — not a very productive attitude.