ex-l wrote:Without asking any more about the nature and circumstances of the experience you claim you have had them, pose yourself as being an expert, then suggest the cause is either bad posture or lack of orgasms. Whew ... its like a doctor saying, "take an asprin, go to bed, and if it is still happening in the morning, come back and see me".
It wasn't "either - or". I am saying there are MANY other possible explanations, and put these forward as examples.
ex-l wrote:You suggest that anything related to spiritualism is irrational and unsupportable whilst now going on to suggesting some occult practise yourself ... as in unseen "energy transfers". Care to develop the science of that and explain how it works?
Yes, well spotted. I accept we exist (we are not illusions). We have mind - "psyche" - a 6th sense like the other senses. Just as you cannot see the sense of smell or the sense of touch, we experience them via the various organs, so too we experience/express mind within and through the body. The relationship & correlations between the various facets that make up an individual are many and complex - and understood by different paradigms - Western, Eastern as general categories (specifically, e.g. anatomy physiology, neurology, psychology - then there's chi, prana, pneuma, ayurvedic and so many other paradigms).
These are all relatively recent paradigms when compared with animism, faith healing and spiritualistic beliefs. My suggestion is that these latter ones are hangovers, used only when people cannot find , or do not understand, how something can be explained within the other more sophisticated models. As a lateral example, I think creationism still holds sway because the complexities and inherent uncertainties in modern explanations are less comfortable for people who like things tied up quickly and neatly.
So, back to topic - the complexity in the description or explanation of an individual's intense experience is multiplied when another person or group is brought into the picture, with all their energies etc. It is attractive to simplify it all by using an external "other" to make sense of it, but I'd suggest it's foolish to not check one's self first and the situation as a whole. You have to be a kind of experiential detective.