What Are Ghosts? A New Theory Incorporating New Thought.

Recently I’ve been watching a show called “Psyhcic Kids: Paranormal Children”, aired on A&E but watched via instant watch Netflix. I’ve noticed that most of the shows are the exact same scenario, some kids can see dead people and some can see what are usually depicted as demonic forces but construed more by the children themselves as negative shadow-like forms that resemble the outline of a person.
My hypothesis: Might these negative forms not be what has historically been represented as “not human” and “demonic forces” be unconscious shadow energies that control our lives manifesting as physical bodies only to the one who is perceiving them? Let me elucidate here. Many of us, in our lives, avoid and deny pain, anger, loneliness, sadness, and even fearfulness through the ego’s protective lens, Fear. In consideration to Eckhart Tolle’s “emotional pain body”, might these children who are sensing dark like negative entities actually be projecting and experiencing their very own emotional pain bodies?
However this may work, whether they may carry them (neg. entity) on into a new life from a previous one, or have the ability to objectively and physically view these emotional pain bodies from this life, it is an interesting concept to think that these negative energy forces that seem to haunt young children, especially female ones, may not be from “the other realm”, but may in fact be produced and perceived by the very same person experiencing them, not as a psychologically defunct brain, but as a real experience of some repressed or suppressed part of themselves. These may be what have generally been referred to as "the shadow people".

What do some of you think?

The Life-World (or) Lebenswelt

This is straight from a book I'm reading called "The Spell of the Sensuous". Required reading for all of those who have felt what I have felt, that something happened in the past, some wrong thinking, that has become solidified as the "only" way of thinking correctly. Just check out what David Abram has to say, oh and he talks about the philosopher Husserl, who was basically a bad ass. Also, this has very much to do with "waking-up", "enlightenment", and everything "zen":

Although Husserl at first wrote of the nonmaterial, mental character of experienced reality, his growing recognition of intersubjective experience, and of the body's importance for such experience, ultimately led him to recognize a more primary, corporeal dimension, midway betweeen the transcendental "consciousness" of his earlier analyses and the utterly objective "matter" assumed by the natural sciences. This was the intersubjective world of life, the Lebenswelt, or "life-world."

The life-world is the world of our immediately lived experience, as we live it, prior to all our thoughts about it. It is that which is present to us in our everyday tasks and enjoyments-reality as it engages us before being analyzed by our theories and our science. The life-world is the world that we count on without necessarily paying it much attention, the world of clouds overhead and the ground underfoot, of getting out of bed and preparing food and turning on the tap water. Easily overlooked, this primordial world is always already there when we begin to reflect or philosophize. It is not a private, but a collective, dimension-the common field of our lives and the other lives with which ours are entwined- and yet it is profoundly ambiguous and indeterminate, since our experience of this field is always relative to our situation within it. The life-world is thus the world as we organically experience it in its enigmatic multiplicity and open-endedness, prior to conceptually freezing it into a static space of "facts"-prior, indeed, to conceptualizing it in any complete fashion. All of our concepts and representations, scientific and otherwise, necessarily draw from nourishment from this indeterminate realm, as the physicist analyzing data is still nourished by the air that she is breathing, by the feel of the chair that supports her and the light flooding in through the window, without her being particularly conscious of these participations.

The life-world is thus peripherally present in any thought of activity we undertake. Yet whenever we attempt to explain this world conceptually, we seem to forget our active participation within it. Striving to represent the world, we inevitably forfeit its direct presence. It was Husserl's genius to realize that the assumption of objectivity had led to an almost total eclipse of the life-world in the modern era, to a nearly complete forgetting of this living dimension in which all of our endeavors are rooted. In their striving to attain a finished blueprint of the world, the sciences had become frightfully estranged from our direct human experience. Their many specialized and technical discourses had lost any obvious relevance to the sensuous world or our "ordinary" engagements. The consequent impoverishment of language, the loss of a common discourse tuned to the qualitative nuances of living experience, was leading, Husserl felt, to a clear crisis in European civilization. Oblivious to the quality-laden life-world upon which they themselves depend for their own meaning and existence, the Western sciences, and the technologies that accompany them, were beginning to blindly overrun the experiential world-even, in their errancy, threatening to obliterate the world-of-life entirely.

*phew* those of you who read that, all i can say is "awesomeness abounds". please feel free to comment on anything.

Language Entrapping View

This is something I've been trying to put into words for a very long time while dialoging with my friend screwy, but have always failed at it. it is about the inner machinations of the mind to stick to the status qou way of thinking without ever really questioning the very paradigm within which it exists. without further ado, so eloquently put, here it goes, in the words of Rodney smith.
"All is held by the mind's view, the vast network of assumptions and relationships of one concept to another, which provides the overlay and logic of the structure that ties everything together. The view we hold is most easily discerned through the narrative we tell ourselves about what is happening. as long as we maintain our story line, the view walls us off from contradiction, and inconsistencies are incorporated back into the story's point of view. for example, the current worldview holds that variations from the agreed-upon reality, such as extra-sensory perception, other realms of existence, or ghosts, are not provable. The system of proof is derived from the view that believes these experiences are imagined. Since the view is configured to eliminate any threat from conflicting evidence, the proof is never validated. "Yes," we say. "There are many examples of ghost stories, but these instances cannot be replicated, and most people never see ghosts at all. Therefore it is not logically consistent or scientifically verifiable [which are standards set by the prevailing view]." The real problem is that there is no explanation for these occurrences within the established view, and therefore they must be dismissed in order for things to continue as normal.
The mind's responsibility is to manage the concepts it knows and to hold conflicting ideas at bay in order to firmly fix reality and our place within it. Our inner narrative takes the agreed-upon view and applies it to the details of our life. It becomes our story, and we are the story tellers. When the story is threatened, the wagons are circled and our defenses contract around our view. Most experiences that threaten the view are denied, avoided, or dismissed, and those that reinforce it are incorporated. We end up strengthening the sense-of-self with every perception."
Indeed, if you observe your own opinions and views you will find that most, if not all, are informed by the very current dominant world-view grafted onto our own thoughts. whether democrat, republican, hippie, or conservative, the opposites all fit within this paradigm of pitting polar opposite against polar opposite. to step outside your own self-deception, as Rodney smith painstakingly traces in his book, is the first key to true freedom.

stepping out of self-deception

a quick read about the dangers of the desire to change:
"I teach a number of beginning meditation classes, and when i start each series by asking people about their expectations, inevitably they mention their desire to change. Their motivation comes from the hope of being altered in some way, and their receptivity is narrowed to the language of self-modification. They are usually pragmatic and willing to expend energy for a qualified period of time if the hardship of practicing translates into change.
embedded in our psyche is the concept of change, a sense of growing toward something. We believe in time and we use time to achieve our goals. Evolution provides a sense of meaning, purpose, and direction. It motivates us to see ourselves evolving over time, and it gives us hope and determination that a better life, or at least a better "me" within life, is possible.
The language of change also fits the Dharma's emphasis on impermanence. The teaching of annica, or the transitory quality of all things, is central to the whole of Buddhism. it states that all phenomenon, both mental and physical, are in a constant state of flux. When we incorporate that view into our spiritual practice, we begin to believe that we should be changing right along with the rest of the phenomenal world, and this satisfies the desire to navigate around our problems without having to understand them.
It is true that everything about us is changing, everything except our view that life is always changing. this fixed view looks out upon the field of change and says, "Yes, I am evolving, becoming more patient, steady, and centered. Yes, it is working." The view paradoxically reinforces the sense-of-self that loves to perceive change but refuses to abide within it. everything is changing in body and mind except the "I' that perceives that fact, because the sense-of-I is a conceptual idea and concepts do not change. The self maintains its secure footing by observing change from afar and reflecting upon it. Abiding within change is a threat to its continuity, so "I" keep change at bay by holding a view about it.
"Stepping Out Of Self Deception" by Rodney Smith. Ch. 8- Language entrapping view- pg. 111-112.