In my last post, I suggested the possibility that mediumistic communications may sometimes or frequently originate with something akin to the "astral shell" of mystical thought. I called it the persona or the ego. For simplicity, let’s call it the ego-persona from now on.
This ego-persona incorporates everything, or nearly everything, that we think of as constituting our personality, including our memories, emotions, hopes, dreams, fears, and loves. The one thing it lacks is self-awareness. This quality is provided by the Witness, the timeless, egoless part of us that observes our ego-persona and contributes the spark of life, as it were. Without the Witness, the ego-persona is mostly just a collection of quirks and tics which may continue operating for a while, maybe even indefinitely, but without any personal growth.
Now, how plausible is this idea? Well, I think I can make a semi-plausible case for it, though many questions remain.
But first, is there any evidence that the ego-persona separates from the Witness at the point of death? Possibly, yes. Some studies of near-death experiences have shown that people who have undergone these events have an unusual propensity for dissociation. I suspect that this mental trait is a direct result of the NDE itself. If the NDE entails partial dissociation from the ego-persona, then this effect may linger even after the experience is over. Of course this implies that an actual death experience (as opposed to a close call) would entail at least as much separation of the Witness from the ego-persona.
Next, we have to wonder how active this ego-persona might be. Is it limited to merely repeating things that it’s already said or thought, or can it engage constructively in dialogue, in give-and-take exchanges?
I think if we introspect, we’ll find that the ego-persona can be very active indeed. We often find ourselves doing things unconsciously. In fact, I suspect that most of what we do throughout the course of the day is largely unconscious. A lot of our thinking consists of rationalizing behaviors that we are already performing. The experience of finding yourself in a room and then wondering, Why did I come in here? is hardly novel.
It seems safe to say, then, that the ego-persona has a certain degree of autonomy and initiative — not necessarily free will, but an ability to respond to stimuli or engage in repetitive behavior. Perhaps we can think of it as being something like a dog. A dog shows initiative at times, even a certain limited creativity. What a dog lacks is self-awareness, the faculty of the Witness — and this is what the ego-persona lacks also.
So the fact that ego-personas can communicate, show interest, make demands, answer questions, even talking in their own voice or materialize and shake hands (if this actually happens) does not mean they are self-aware. We can do all of these things now without thinking about it or being aware of it.
On the other hand, an exercise of unusual creativity might indicate self-awareness, since the unconscious actions of the ego-persona are generally repetitious and uncreative. A dog doesn’t show much creativity; he’s mostly a creature of habit, of stimulus and response. So is the ego-persona, for the most part.
That’s why the cross correspondences, which do show evidence of subtle and ingenious creativity, are among the best proof of the survival of personal self-awareness, as opposed to the survival of the ego-persona. The cross correspondences are so original in conception that it is difficult to ascribe them to the workings of the (basically) uncreative ego-persona.
Perhaps the famous R-101 case also qualifies, since the chief communicator (Irwin) seemed able to hypothesize and theorize creatively about the cause of the crash and to discuss possible engineering modifications. This type of communication goes considerably beyond mere chitchat or the utterance of vague generalities or specific but trivial recollections.
Also, there are cases in which the communicator speaks of having undergone significant personal growth in his postmortem existence. He has learned a new things and developed a new perspective, even a new philosophy. To the extent that these communications are not products of the medium’s subconscious mind, they indicate the continuing presence of self-awareness in conjunction with the ego-persona.
Of course, if we grant that ego-persona can be creative and capable of intellectual and spiritual growth, then all bets are off. But at that point, we seem to be drawing no distinction between the ego-persona and a person. If the ego-persona can do everything a person can do, then it is a distinction without a difference.
The bottom line is that the ego-persona may be communicating in many seances, and may be just as real as any other constructed personality, whether it is a personality constructed by the medium’s subconscious mind or by some other source. This would perhaps explain the oddly somnambulistic quality of much mediumistic communication, the strange lapses and illogicalities, and the appearance of fictional communicators and still-living communicators alongside the verifiable, deceased ones.
Note that this hypothesis does not entail super-psi. The medium is not necessarily creating these thought forms (though she may create some of them, like her controls). For the most part, they already exist. She is just accessing them. And they have enough initiative to seek her out, in the manner of drop-in communicators – just as a dog can seek its master.
The bottom line is that the medium may be communicating with something, but not necessarily with the spirit or soul as we normally understand it. Or, more precisely, in certain cases she may be communicating with the spirit (the Witness + the ego-persona), while in other cases she may be communicating only with the astral shell (the ego-persona alone).