Talking with the deceased.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/50/faith-news-articles/96110/rochdale-christian-spiritualist-community-church-dedication-serv

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/96164/protesters-accuse-new-church-of-being-devil-worshippers

Some mixed opinions about the Spiritualist Church and the 'medium development classes' on offer.

For those of us who know very little about communicating with the dead, Spiritualist beliefs seem a bit bizarre. I knew someone who went to a similar church and would quite matter of factly give me messages from the deceased. Nothing too worrying, and I didn't take it very seriously.

People do get airiated about religious belief, and it can be difficult to apply logic to such matters. No individual or group of believers can be pressed too much to account for or explain the things they believe, but the effects of religious belief systems on society are often very considerable.

Very big in my mothers day and was around still in my youth. Set of nutters but doing no harm from what I could see. If the 'believers' wanted to bung a few quid/shillings every week to the spiritualist (who usually lived quite modestly) and it gave them some solace or peace of mind then so be it. They were never 'destructive' as a so-called 'religion' - well not in Rochdale anyway.

Communicating with the deceased seems an iffy sort of enterprise, but then, it's not something I know much about. Some of the discoveries and theories of science are pretty spooky, quantum physics and superstring theory, multiverses and so on. Time is a big puzzle, the ancient religions, shamanism and australian aborigional beliefs talk about different sorts or streams of time, dreamtime etc., so who knows.

Indeed. I will come back on that one.

Communicating in some way with the dead is, let's face it, a wierd subject, however, it's one of those things humans involve themselves with, always have done and perhaps always will?

Many existing societies place an emphasis on it. Mexico famously has it's day of the dead.

In our society, the emphasis has perhaps moved from communicating with direct ancestors to with the dead more generally, thought to have become fashionable after the mass slaughter of world war one.

Traditionally, communicating with the ancestors has been closely tied with continuity of culture. To some, such beliefs and practices are consigned to the dustbin of history by modernism, to others, not so.

Communicating with the dead in one way or another is something humans have attempted to do, apparently since the beginning of history, and still do. Is it an entirely meaningless and useless thing, or, is there something to be understood?

Your final sentence is about the crux of the matter. I have no time for beliefs which smack in the face of logic. The 'life' is created by biological matter at the onset(conception) and the 'life' becomes extinct when that 'mix' is separated (death). To 'what' is one trying to communicate? Nonsensical.

The question is not about individual beliefs, Atlas, although probably nobody else is listening.

It's about the huge amount of time, energy, focus, belief, the consequent implications and results, which are many and in some cases massive, on human societies throughout the ages, centering round communication with the ancestors and similar activities. A somewhat different thing to belief or not in God.

Are humans simply a sadly deluded species, or, is there some meaning to all this behavior? Modern interpretations of stonehenge and allied structures is of a society revolving around communication with the ancestors combined with astronomical, calendrical and farming preoccuations. Similarly religious, tribal, cultural groups revere their ancestors and depend on some form of subtle communication with them. We humans do some pretty strange things, understanding why can be very 'challenging'. Elephants have some ritual type behavior around death, but apart from that, relating to or 'communicating' with the dead seems to be a puzzling human speciality. The ghost dance of the native americans was an interesting bit of history on this theme.

It may seem an obscure subject until you realise this is not just history, there are people just down the road busily communicating with the dead on a regular basis.

Religion (or any of its strange offshoots - Spiritualism etc) is very much like a placebo. If you 'believe' it is 'real' and it will work for you, then in many cases it will. But I would conjure with the explanation that there was actually nothing wrong with you in the first place - you just thought there was. The 'mind' has the capacity to conjure up a kaleidescope of 'ills' real or otherwise.

Those that 'believe' they can communicate with the dead through others (if so why not themselves) are at the mercy of the charlatans or the so called psychic. The 'real' psychic I have some time for. In that case I could safely go along with time-warp - flashes of something that has happened recently which the psychic can manifest in some kind of inner visual re-enactment. But for the most part 99% is utter bunkum. There are also people who have a brilliance for intuitions and for picking up 'clues' that most seem unable to observe. But as for 'the dead can talk or walk'! Utter twaddle.

It is amazing just how many people haven't a clue how the brain works and believe we have a 'soul' - some mysterious cloud of whatever buzzing around in our bodily system - and that this buzzing cloud whips off somewhere when the biological host finally disintegrates. Dearie me -. Is it any wonder we act like we do when we don't make the effort to understand how and what we are made of in the first place.

And of course it's much easier to have some mystic Meg to blame when things go right or wrong  - er - It's God's will! No it bloodywell isn't - it's natures or it's man's. Take your thumb out of your rear orrifice and grow up why don't you -. Tch.

Is anybody there?

If I am here looking in who are the other 10 looking in. From the spirit world?

Obviously not teamplayer2. Otherwise they would have made some supreme effort to get in touch (knowing who it was was calling). (Don't you just love those 'double word' offerings - makes me go all tinggly).

So you will just have to make do with me - the self-oppinionated one.

The question is, is are the dead dead or the living living in an illusory time disconnect? To the simple mind it seems inconceivable that a something, a personality, can cease to exist completely. Nothing that exists can be destroyed totally can it it can only change.

Yes indeed. But there is a world of difference between a concious state and a vegetative state.

I would proffer the ashes of my dead parents - yes they exist, but they don't communicate with me. They are not aware of my living presence although I am well aware of their dead presence in another 'form'.

That 'part' of the living being that 'was' is no longer. The living part has in a sense 'run to earth' and dissipated. It no longer has the ability to form itself into something with which we 'the living' can understand or communicate with. Ashes to ashes dust to dust has a well thought out and true meaning. From stardust we come and to stardust we return -in due course. One should not confuse the two states of being nor expect the two states to rationalise sufficiently as to understand each other. Therefore 'talking with or to the dead' and receiving a lucid response is a flawed (if not fraudulent) occupation. Show me a 'spiritualist' and I will show you a 'charlatan'.

All very matter of fact, but, a personality has no material form, if anything it can be understood as an organising pattern behind electro-chemical activity. That organising pattern is not the electro chemical activity, it's not a material thing at all, yet it results in one of the most tangible and important things in human experience, personality.

If personality cannot be 'pinned down' as materially existing, how can we say where it came from or where it goes, whether it pre-existed in some form before birth, and continues to exist in some form after death.

A puzzle on similar lines is found in birdsong. In what is thought to be a weight saving process, to make flying more efficient, the part of the birds' brain that contains the instructions for it to sing, physically grows for the mating season, then physically fades away to nothing later in the year when the singing season is over. So where do the 'instructions', the 'patterns' of song come from, where are they stored, and where do they go?

In my experience a 'personality' is a 'groomed' product aided and abetted through nurture and nature and can be manipulated to suit the occasion at the behest of the owner. It is 'formed' through life experience and can be directed for its best advantage. The brain is an amazing organism wherein the multitude of chemical reactions/mixtures can be formulated much like the baking of a cake for presentation to suit the occasion. To say - he/she has a wonderful personality. Always the same. Always smiling. Courteous, thoughtful etc etc etc, is only a 'perception' from the observers POV. The reality can be something completely different. It's a thought process to assist the 'wearer' to manage life to the best advantage.

The 'bird song' is interesting but again I would proffer genetics. DNA patterns from parent to progeny writ large for procreation of the species. The bird-song is a sexual attractor vital for the pairing and continuity of the species ergo the apparatus for production is 'in-built' . Man has something similar. It's called sexual arousal and erections the combination of which (without external interference) is required for the same purpose.

None of these could ever be considered as 'ethereal' or 'spiritual' or 'intangible'. All have a logical progression and are explainable through physics and science - - but it is an interesting area for further research.

If personality is just a mask, with no reality to it, and civilisation a junk by-product of evolution, nothing's particularly worth bothering with really, is it ?

If somebody had explained all that to humanity a bit earlier on, we could have avoided a lot of trouble and effort and just sat on the beach waiting for coconuts to fall.

Historically, civilisation got off to an unpromising start as a people farming and taxation arrangement. It did show a bit of promise at times, ancient Greece etc., and there was some optimism for it in the UK post war, but what with the general dumbing down and windows 8, difficult to see much future for it.

Possibly might work out ok again for a while, once this sequence of wars and conflicts that seems to be brewing resolves itself.

Well that all really depends upon where one is coming from - and I don't mean Venus, because there is no future there either.
As it is estimated that the universe has at least another 15 billion years of existence (possibly more) such a time span could accommodate for zillions more generations of our species - if they have the nounce to survive it - before the final curtain falls on this particular universe which we inhabit. Nothing lasts forever. It was never meant to. That's not the 'name' of the 'game'.
If one is asking 'what's the point'? There never was one. A 'point' that is. Science and physics has its own rationale which is to experiment without conscience or purpose. It's only humans that give it a 'cause' on which to hang its coat-tails. You (and I) are here to propagate our species - nothing more, nothing less. We do it because we have acquired an inbuilt will for self-survival - that allows for procreation and the will for that generation to survive and go on. I see nothing wrong with that otherwise why would we be here at all? As we progress we gain knowledge. That's down to our inbuilt curiosity and it is that alongside my previous comment that pushes the boundaries.
If one is looking for some rational, logical purpose to everything then it is hardly surprising that some bright sparks take advantage and come up with intangibles is it? But that in essence is all they are 'intangibles'.

Intangibles are interesting if you are in the mood for them, but a TV comedy show can be just as good. TV comedians are a bit iffy these days though, will we see the likes of Kenn Dodd, Tommy Cooper, Morecambe and Wise again? Maybe.

No - because comedy like everything evolves with the species. What made you laugh 500 years ago would leave you confused today - other than slap-stick - accidental comedy minus words - which in itself is a natural human reaction from shock/fear/embarrassment/relief combined. As for intangibles we used to put traps down for them, but they went out with rationing in the 50's.

Trying now to think of a modern tv comedian who has a sense of humour. Jack Dee has one, sort of. Many don't have that basic qualification for the job, and yet are apparently, inexplicably popular, there must be some reason why, that's probably nothing to do with comedy.

Each has a glimmer of genius, none has it all. They are a rare breed. Perhaps with the exception of Bradley Walsh.

Bradley Walsh? What are you on about? Bradley Walsh appears to be a decent, hard working generalist showbiz sort of man, but comedy? I didn't even realise he was trying to be funny.

Bradley Walsh voted best stand-up comedian of the 1990's by the Comedians Guild.

If you have never seen him do a stand-up spot - you really have missed out. Quite brilliant.

Bob Monkhouse was another genius when on live (off tv/radio) performances. Probably the best of his generation.