Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

Alex · 02-04-2007, 10:31 AM

No, my question does not presume that. My question presumes that if it is a parlor game, then the people who claim its truth are, whether knowingly or not, commiting a fraud. My question for thecorndogwalker is, if PLR is just a fun little game then what are his thoughts on people who charge for it and quite seriously defend its reality and efficacy.

I haven't said a word about hypnotherapy in general and its efficacy. Just past life regression and I feel I asked some valid questions for which I am interested in hearing thecorndogwalker's answers. Since thecorndogwalker feels it is therapeutic ("a certain procedure can help them change for the better") I'm interested in what he fundamentally thinks is happening when this is done.

So, to rephrase without the word charlatan:

thecorndogwalker:

1. When you do this, do you believe that the participants are, in reality, connecting and discovering details of actual past lives lived by that person?

2. How does this field account for the fact that a success rate is generally claimed for this procedure that is much larger than the ratio of currently living people to world populations in the past. For example, there are currently more than twice as many people as 40 years, three times as many as 100 years ago and six times as many as 200 years ago. This implies that only one out eight people currently living could have lived a life during the Rennaissance and only 50% could have a past life at all. Further defying the odds, why do so many people seem to have lived past lives of prominence (not necessarily current-day famous, but generally well above the statistical mean for the era)? Which Cleopatra is the real one?

3. If you do not believe that actual past lives are involved but rather PLR is a method for exploring how a person actually thinks about themselves, revealing their subconscious and this is known to practitioners, is it ethical for those practitioners to mislead participants in order to achieve this benefit?

4. PLR has many advocates who claim prominent examples of the therapy revealing historically verifiable information that could not possibly have been known to the participant or the therapist. But so far, most have not suffered thorough examination well, revealing either that someone involved actually knew the information, the information was actually vague and just attached to specific information, or the information was misinterpreted (such as thinking an unknown foreign language was spokent but wasn't). In your personal practice of this do you feel anybody has ever revealed such historical information and have you or the participant made any attempt to verify it?

5. Since hypnosis is most famously used to make people behave as they otherwise wouldn't. Since false memory implantation, particularly through hypnosis, is well established. Since hypnosis opens you up to suggestibility and behavior and speech known to not be true, what distinguishes PLR so that there is confidence that what is said is real and not just a response to suggestion?

So, yes, I am skeptical of past life regression. But I am honestly curious how you address such questions as a person who practices it. And if there were a "fun" group doing it I would be interested in observing (quietly, of course).

02-04-2007, 10:31 AM	#30
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	No, my question does not presume that. My question presumes that if it is a parlor game, then the people who claim its truth are, whether knowingly or not, commiting a fraud. My question for thecorndogwalker is, if PLR is just a fun little game then what are his thoughts on people who charge for it and quite seriously defend its reality and efficacy. I haven't said a word about hypnotherapy in general and its efficacy. Just past life regression and I feel I asked some valid questions for which I am interested in hearing thecorndogwalker's answers. Since thecorndogwalker feels it is therapeutic ("a certain procedure can help them change for the better") I'm interested in what he fundamentally thinks is happening when this is done. So, to rephrase without the word charlatan: thecorndogwalker: 1. When you do this, do you believe that the participants are, in reality, connecting and discovering details of actual past lives lived by that person? 2. How does this field account for the fact that a success rate is generally claimed for this procedure that is much larger than the ratio of currently living people to world populations in the past. For example, there are currently more than twice as many people as 40 years, three times as many as 100 years ago and six times as many as 200 years ago. This implies that only one out eight people currently living could have lived a life during the Rennaissance and only 50% could have a past life at all. Further defying the odds, why do so many people seem to have lived past lives of prominence (not necessarily current-day famous, but generally well above the statistical mean for the era)? Which Cleopatra is the real one? 3. If you do not believe that actual past lives are involved but rather PLR is a method for exploring how a person actually thinks about themselves, revealing their subconscious and this is known to practitioners, is it ethical for those practitioners to mislead participants in order to achieve this benefit? 4. PLR has many advocates who claim prominent examples of the therapy revealing historically verifiable information that could not possibly have been known to the participant or the therapist. But so far, most have not suffered thorough examination well, revealing either that someone involved actually knew the information, the information was actually vague and just attached to specific information, or the information was misinterpreted (such as thinking an unknown foreign language was spokent but wasn't). In your personal practice of this do you feel anybody has ever revealed such historical information and have you or the participant made any attempt to verify it? 5. Since hypnosis is most famously used to make people behave as they otherwise wouldn't. Since false memory implantation, particularly through hypnosis, is well established. Since hypnosis opens you up to suggestibility and behavior and speech known to not be true, what distinguishes PLR so that there is confidence that what is said is real and not just a response to suggestion? So, yes, I am skeptical of past life regression. But I am honestly curious how you address such questions as a person who practices it. And if there were a "fun" group doing it I would be interested in observing (quietly, of course).
	Submit to Quotes