Microsoft Word Raymond Moody Life After Life doc

particular explanation. Those who espouse the theories of Freud delight in 
seeing the being of light as a projection of the subject's father, while 
Jungians see archetypes of the collective unconscious, and so on ad 
infinitum. 
Although I want to emphasize again that I am not proposing any new 
explanations of my own through all this, I have tried to give a few reasons 
why explanations that are often proposed seem to me at least questionable. 
In fact, all I really want to suggest is this: Let us at least leave open the 
possibility that near-death experiences represent a novel phenomenon for 
which we may have to devise new modes of explanation and interpretation. 
====================================== 
6 - Impressions 
In writing this book I have been acutely conscious that my purpose and 
perspectives might very easily be misunderstood. In particular, I would like 
to say to scientifically-minded readers that I am fully aware that what I have 
done here does not constitute a scientific study. And to my fellow 
philosophers I would insist that I am not under the delusion that I have 
"proven" there is life after death. To deal with these matters thoroughly 
would involve the discussion of technical details which lie beyond the scope 
of this book, so I shall limit myself to the following brief remarks. 

---

In such specialized studies as logic, law, and science the words 
"conclusion," "evidence," and "proof" are technical terms and have more 
sophisticated meanings than they do in common usage. In everyday 
language these same words are used very loosely. A glance at any of the 
more sensational popular magazines will enable one to see that almost any 
unlikely tale will be given as "proof" of some improbable claim. 
In logic what can and cannot be said to follow from a given set of premises 
is not at all a casual matter. It is very vigorously and precisely defined by 
rules, conventions, and laws. When one says that one has drawn a certain 
"conclusion," one is implicitly making the claim that anyone who begins 
from the same premises must arrive at the same conclusion, unless he has 
made a mistake in logic. 
These remarks indicate why I refuse to draw any "conclusions" from my 
study and why I say that I am not trying to construct a proof of the ancient 
doctrine of the survival of bodily death. Yet I think that these reports of 
near-death experiences are very significant. What I want to dc is find some 
middle way of interpreting them 
way which neither rejects these experiences on the-. basis that they do not 
constitute scientific or logical proof nor sensationalizes them by resorting to 
vague emotional claims that they "prove" that there is life after death. 
At the same time, it seems to me to be an open possibility that our present 
inability to construct "proof" may not represent a limitation impose by the 
nature of the near-death experiences themselves. Perhaps it is instead a 

---

limitation of the currently accepted modes of scientific and logical thought. 
It may be that the perspective of scientists and logicians of the future will be 
very different. (One must remember that historically logic and scientific 
methodology have not been fixed and static systems but growing, dynamic 
processes.) 
So I am left, not with conclusions or evidence or proofs, but with something 
much less definite -feelings, questions, analogies, puzzling facts to be 
explained. In fact, it might be more appropriate to ask, not what conclusions 
I have drawn on the basis of my study, but rather how the study has affected 
me personally. In response I can only say: There is something very 
persuasive about seeing a person describe his experience which cannot 
easily be conveyed in writing. Their near-death experiences were very real 
events to these people, and through my association with them the 
experiences have become real events to me. 
I realize, however, that this is a psychological consideration and not a logical 
one. Logic is a public matter, and psychological considerations are not 
public in the same way. One person may be affected or changed in one way 
and another person in a different way by the same set of circumstances. It is 
a matter of disposition and temperament, and I do not wish to imply that my 
own reaction to this study should be a law for the thinking of everyone else. 
In view of this, some might ask, "If the interpretation of these experiences is 
ultimately such a subjective matter, why study them?" I can think of no other 
way to answer this than to point again to the universal human concern with 
the nature of death. I believe that any light whatever which can be shed on 
the nature of death is to the good. 

---

Enlightenment on this subject is needed by members of many professions 
and academic fields. It is needed by the physician who has to deal with the 
fears and hopes of the dying patient and by the minister helping others to 
face death. It is needed also by psychologists and psychiatrists, because in 
order to devise a workable and reliable method for the therapy of emotional 
disturbances they need to know what the mind is and whether it can exist 
apart from the body. If it cannot, then the emphasis of psychological therapy 
would shift ultimately toward physical methods-drugs, electric shock 
therapy, brain surgery, and the like. On the other hand, if there are 
indications that the mind can exist apart from the body and that it is 
something in its own right, then therapy for mental disorders must finally be 
something very different. 
However, more than academic and professional issues are involved. It 
involves deeply personal issues, for what we learn about death may make an 
important difference in the way we live our lives. If experiences of the type 
which I have discussed are real, they have very profound implications for 
what every one of us is doing with his life. For, then it would be true that we 
cannot fully understand this life until we catch a glimpse of what lies beyond 
it. 
====================================== 
End.