A contemporary method for documenting consciousness, grounded in the classical tradition of focused inquiry.
The Emergence of a Validation Requirement
Metapsychics Science™ did not originate as a theoretical proposal. It emerged through long-term engagement with the same empirical field confronted by early metapsychical researchers.
Extensive work within this domain made one issue unavoidable: any serious investigation into survival of consciousness must rest on validation rather than interpretation.
From Experience to Method
Decades of direct engagement with anomalous phenomena revealed both the limitations of descriptive metapsychics and the insufficiency of purely psychological explanation.
The decisive problem was not whether phenomena occurred, but whether identity, continuity, and information content could be critically examined under conditions suitable for scientific scrutiny.
The Influence of Richet and Jung
Charles Richet’s work established the necessity of empirical courage and intellectual restraint. Carl Jung later articulated the psychological consequences of unresolved boundary phenomena and unconscious projection.
The validation requirement, however, precedes psychological language. It arises directly from the empirical field Richet revealed and Jung interpreted.
Why Metapsychics Science™ Was Formed
Metapsychics Science™ takes form at the intersection where observation and interpretation alone are no longer sufficient. It defines a field structured by method, not by belief or metaphysical assumption.
Spirit ID was developed as the methodological response to this unresolved requirement: a framework aimed at empirical validation of individual consciousness beyond biological death.
The role of the founder is not authoritative, but custodial—to preserve the integrity of the field and its methodological demands.
Epistemic and Ontological Position
Epistemically, I remain strictly observational. I work with data points—phenomena as they are experienced, registered, and described—without extending those observations into claims about the underlying nature of reality.
Ontologically, my position is separate and explicit. I define the whole of what is as my concept of God. This is not a religious claim, nor does it imply belief in a personal deity, intention, revelation, or authority. It is a non‑theological definition of totality—the sum of existence itself.
In practical terms:
- Epistemology governs how I observe, model, and describe phenomena.
- Ontology provides a personal orientation toward existence as a whole.
- The two domains are deliberately not conflated.
My work remains methodological and descriptive. My ontological orientation is philosophical rather than doctrinal, and does not require adoption by others.
Founded and curated by Jostein Strømmen