Here is another one of this mass of evidence I spoke about in my article DOES SCIENCE HAVE BLINDERS ON?
Many years ago LIFE magazine did a whole issue devoted to a recently -- at the time -- discovered diary of a famous American historical figure, Sam Chamberlain. The person who wrote the diary later became a Lieutenant General and otherwise well known. It was an interesting personal account of his daily life and as such an important historical document. But the most interesting part of it for me was an incident that he described, and I suggest that you find this issue of LIFE and read it for yourself, as my memory is not perfect.
The part I was interested in was an account of his involvement in the war with Mexico in the mid 19th Century. He was in a cavalry charge of the American army against the Mexican army, both with lances. A young American lieutenant in the charge next to him was struck by a lance in the breast and killed instantly. After the end of the fighting, he took it upon himself to make a visit to the family of the young lieutenant who had been killed. He wanted to give them his personal condolenses as one who was with the young lieutenant when he was killed. When he told them what happened they were astonished and told him a very strange story. They said that at the same time that the young lieutenant was struck in the chest with a Mexican lance and died, his twin sister in Iowa (I believe it was Iowa) suddenly grabbed her own chest and said, "Roger has been killed." (if that was his name; I don't remember exactly). She then dropped dead herself.
I don't find this to be in accordance with our known laws of nature. And the fact that it was in a diary and not published until many years after the death of Sam Chamberlain adds credance to the story. How do you make "scientific sense" of this event?
he
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 12
I agree ... gee, that description sounds just like the "dorks" that have yet to show up here and tell us all how stupid we are and how smart they are ... :-)
Come on Tristan, come leave your legacy for the future ...
The "soul", is a word that has changed meaning over the centuries. It originally meant "breath". Spirit meant "air". Now through religion we have augmented the terminology, to suit each each generation's interpretation. Neither "breath" nor "air" carries our personality.
When I was 21, I "saw" my mother, who at the time.. I did not have knowledge of her death. She was dead, telling me she didn't regret it. I "saw" her being put in an ambulance, taken from her car, the day she died! I was not given confirmation of her death until three days later. My body didn't go into shock, like my other siblings. It already "knew". What shocked me was that I "knew".
This was the first experience I had with what is termed "ESP", and by no means, the last. On a scientific level, quantum theory interests me, "being in two places at once".. because it just might explain this phenomenon.
SCIENCE is discovery.. it is not conclusive in it's studies, as theories, and the things we have learned or discovered are ever changing. We once thought Pluto was a planet. It is no longer considered a planet as we learn more.
The "war" between religion, spirituality and science has always been. Religions feared science as it would alter the "truth" which would prevent religious domination. Science is just as frightening with it's knowledge and ability to manipulate our world in "evil" ways.
In that we as ego beings see ourselves (the lower self) as a physical entity rather separated from others physically ... we see a sharing though through knowledge of the objective physicality manifested in our mundane understanding (scientifically ?) of those shared factors of objectivity (breath/air/chemicals).
We also see our "personalities" as that objectively expressed in our outer interactions ... even that between the mother bear and her cubs ...
A "scientist" would claim that it is all "just" an electro/chemical "occurrence" ... under the "rules" of science that is "all" he can "officially" do ...
Of course we all know that there is "more" to it ... the more being the subjective aspects of soul and spirit that can neither be quantified nor "proven" via scientific objectivity ... YET (so far)!
It took humanity a long time to "identify" many things scientifically, such as the various harmonic frequency ranges of the differing identities of visible light as compared to infrared, ultraviolet and other frequencies of such energy manifestations ... we now have instruments that both identify as well as produce specific frequency ranges that we now claim "knowledge" of ...
In fact, our entire theory of knowledge, scientifically, has been produced one step at a time, one facet "fact" upon the previous ... and that mostly based upon a concept of space and time and their interrelationships ... those being the basis of our now accepted "reality" for most ... yet God (another "factor" in our belief system) never "designated" any one thing for us to "base" anything on ... in God's "realm" of all, everything, is related and relative (IMnsHO) and ANY differentiations are then thus but what "man" makes of them, so isolating such concepts, first only in our minds, and then "calling" them our "facts," for a basis of common agreement to build our social relationships upon ... ultimately, cumulatively, our common reality becomes just that ... which is REALLY ONLY an earth based "perception" ... granted that it well "could have" been "inspired" intuitvely directly from God via Spirit ... at least, and more likely indirectly from "gods" I would think ...
We call all of that nonspiritual stuff "factual" ... and many "assume" much of it to be actual "truth" ... but I maintain from a philosophical and spiritual perspective, that it is all ONLY a RELATIVE truth ... primarily OBJECTIVE in understanding and actual application ...
The latter, above, being actually even more applicable to most of our mainline "religious" understandings ... even though they "speak" of subjectivity and spirituality, they do not practise the "faith" near as subjectively as they do objectively ... IMO.
Thus, as I see it all more subjectively, yet also very much interrelated to objectivity, the Soul is originated in the overall concept of what I would call the creation of God ... the "mind" is also CONNECTED there, at the God concept Spiritually ... it is of a "frequency" not yet scientifically "isolatable" and objectifiable ... as were the light frequencies at one time ... but possibly they will be someday ... yet as the atomic structure of the atom was once thought to be the basis for matter ... deeper looking always shows "more" ... so far.
Thus I maintain that ALL is interrelated and the objectivity (seemingly) of "chemical love" has its a priori source in spiritual love ... which is an energy frequency of a subjective spiritual nature associated with the God we are all a part of ... which interacts through the "air" as our INforming "breath" interchanging with chemical physicality through our, so far yet limited, "objective" understanding of our DNA-RNA, which is the TRANSCEIVOR LIKE "interchange point" between the subjective spiritual source and the objective physical manifestation that is our ego body and perceived "reality" ... our Soul being our eternal personality only reflected outward objectively.
All of the rest of your comment just confirms that to me ... and probably to you also ... which indicates our possible 'differences" either amounting only to semantics or my misunderstanding. :-)