u/WintyreFraust

What we call "imagination" is not what we've been trained to think it is.

Imagination is a set of "veiled" astral senses and capacities that represent our innate capacity to experience, to one degree or another, actual, real locations in the infinite diversity of existence. There's nothing you can imagine that doesn't exist somewhere.

If you want to have an experience of the afterlife, just imagine whatever scenario, location or situation you would like to see. No matter what you see or experience, it exists; you're just usually getting a kind of low-grade, low-resolution, highly-filtered and difficult to maintain version of that through your "veiled" capacities here.

If you would like more information on this, I have a free book you can read, called "The Architecture of Potential," which is very concise at less than 70 pages. The book also provides a method of moving from point A towards point B, or "where you are" towards "what you imagine."

Please remember: I'm just some guy on the internet writing stuff. Take it or leave it, agree or not. It's all good.

After my wife died in early 2017 and I started a deep dive into researching the evidence and information about the afterlife, one of my biggest challenges was navigating and dealing with all of the spiritual and religious messaging that was infused in every source.

Just this morning, I realized how thoroughly and deeply spiritual and religious tropes had been embedded in my mind. I'm not talking about the obvious ones; I'm talking about a very particular set of general tropes that so many spiritual people take for granted, but for a lot of people make no sense.

The general spiritual idea is this: we come here to learn and experience things for some sort of spiritual advancement, generally towards some more unified state of being and "location" where a lot of things we have in this world are 'outgrown" or no longer matter to us; where we have grown beyond "negative emotions" and attachments to things and/or particular relationships. This is supposedly - eventually - leading towards a less physical, less individualized/egoic, less "separated," more "universally loving" state.

That just doesn't make any sense to me anymore. What exactly is the point of diving into this world where all those "lower vibration" qualities are basically forced upon us by the "veiled" and harsh conditions here, just to try to work them back out of our system with our "spiritual" efforts?

What makes more sense to me is that we (not saying everyone, but some or many) come here to get out of this world exactly what this world basically forces on us as a condition of being here at all: a broader range of diverse emotions than just "unconditional love for all;" more egoic individuality and separation from others; broader ranges of personality; learning how to have an individuated, 3D, time-linear experience; learning how to operate an entirely physical, isolated, 3D body; develop our own unique perspectives, thoughts, ideas, likes and dislikes; being motivated to create and innovate by pain and suffering; learning the basics of mental discipline necessary just to be able to force yourself to do at least the very bare minimum it takes to survive here, and beyond that - to be able to thrive, to exert as much personal will - even force - as it takes to carve out a life here.

I think that, as we are here doing these things, we are helping to "manifest" or build new worlds in the afterlife; bring new things to the afterlife; adding to the infrastructure our ideas, our efforts, our desire, our inventions, our creative endeavors, our imaginative wishes and hopes and dreams, and then when we die we bring all of that unique, powerful individuality across with us like a constructive, creative tornado of manifesting power and energy.

I think a good metaphor of existence is not one of "meeting and coming together" at the top, like some hierarchical pyramid, but rather a huge bush or tree where the "top" is not unity or a singular point, but infinitely diverse branches, leaves and fruit.

IOW, in general, "we're" (not saying everyone) not here to "unify," we're here to individuate and diversify, and to bring that diversity into full bloom and fruition into what we call "the afterlife."

This world and the evidence about the afterlife makes so much more sense, IMO, when you see life this way. Generally, it is an inversion of the usual spiritual tropes about what this world is about and what it is we're here to do.

All possible things, situations, conditions, environments and states of "being" should be available for all to experience, should they so choose as a matter only of learning how and gaining the necessary skills, be those physical or mental/psychological in nature. By "possible," I mean anything imaginable should be entirely open to experience as ones reality.

Imagine an infinite matrix of reality experience potential, where you can experience (what appears to be real) a materialist world without free will; a spiritual hierarchy of souls advancing towards "unity consciousness;" reincarnation & karma and (what appears to be) forced reincarnation; reincarnation as a choice; no reincarnation at all; effective and meaningful astrology and tarot; communication with ghosts; death and finding yourself in any imaginable form of an afterlife, including non-spiritual, non-religious afterlives, where people can live largely normal lives, doing normal things, albeit in more enjoyable circumstances than are generally available in this world, like no illness or death.

The only "restrictions" are logical impossibilities, like being able to draw a square circle, or experiencing "nothingness."

The way it should be is that it's just a matter of discovering and learning how to move yourself through this "matrix of realities" into the one you prefer to live in (or at least visit for a while.)

This, to me, would be the ultimate form of "spirituality;" one where all possibilities are available, and "true spirituality" is really only about learning how to get from A to B, and not trying to tell you where you should go, or where you will go, or arbitrarily limiting your options or telling you how you should be or what you should want.

There are probably infinite reasons why individuals come here to this world to experience a life here. I'm sure there are "soul contracts" for some people and others come here to "help this world" in various ways; some may feel compelled to come here to work out their karma or learn spiritual lessons. Perhaps some come here just for the ride, like getting on a big rollercoaster, or come here to feel certain things that are difficult to experience in what we call "the afterlife."

However, there are some things that we experience and acquire here that are unavoidable if you live for any length of time. Here's my list 10 of those things. (Thanks to u/kaworo0 for his part in a recent discussion about this.)

1. You learn how to be an individual, and you develop your individuality.

2. You exercise your individual mental faculties under difficult circumstances.

3. You learn how to exist in and navigate a 3D-linear spacetime.

4. You learn to discern what is wanted from what is not wanted.

5. You learn how to acutely differentiate between various physical and psychological sensations.

6. You learn how to learn and exercise discernment in what and how you learn.

7. You learn that things can change; you learn how to change them.

8. You experience and learn boundaries.

9. You experience and learn how to navigate relationships with individuals.

10. You experience and (hopefully) learn to manage emotions and psychological states.

IMO, coming here is like checking yourself into a workshop, and IMO, at least for some of us, it's not really about moving on to greater degrees of universal, "unity consciousness" soup.

A large part of this world, it appears to me, is specifically set up for people to learn and develop their individuality and to bring that individuality across to what we call "the afterlife," manifesting or helping to manifest unique new afterlife worlds and bringing new things, qualities, ideas and sensations to those worlds.

I don't think being a fully developed individual is something that naturally occurs throughout the afterlife worlds. Think about it: we know that a high-powered telepathy is common in the afterlife; we know that we can feel, in a sensory way, how other people feel and their emotions. In large areas of the afterlife, apparently, we are far more interpersonally connected psychologically and emotionally. Apparently, you usually can't successfully hide or lie to others about your inner states. The boundaries between people are thin. It's probably hard to even have sense of your own individuality under those circumstances. It may be almost impossible.

I don't think a lot of us come here to learn how to be more connected to others, or to pursue "unity consciousness" or to rejoin the big soup of ego-less cosmic, loving one-ness; rather, we (some of us) come here to find out who we are outside of all of that interconnectedness, develop it, learn how to manage and maintain it, nurture our individual inner natures and help that individuality grow, and carry that "ego," so to speak, over with us.

And I think a 3D-linear time, "veiled" world jammed pack with contrast and highly motivational and challenging situations is perfectly suited for such a journey.

Why would only some possible things exist, and not all other possible things?

Seems like a pretty basic question. One might want to consider this question before they start worrying about whether or not there is an afterlife and/or worry about what the afterlife is like.

I'm going to use special labels here, for the sake of this post: in this post, Finitism is the view that of all possible things, only a very, very tiny fraction of those things exist. Infinitism, on the other hand, for the purpose of this conversation, is the view that all possible things exist.

Let me also say this about what "exists" means: for a thing to "exist" means "it is possible to experience that thing as being as real as what you are currently experiencing as being real."

Let's face it: even in this world, people report experiencing all kinds of strange, non-ordinary, weird and wild things as utterly real experiences. Different groups of people in this world give wide-ranging, widely different accounts of life in this world - what is going on, what it is like to live here, what it all ultimately means.

The same is true about accounts of the afterlife, by both the dead and the living. People spend their time looking for answers about what they will experience when they die, usually never even considering the most basic question of all: Why would only some possible things exist, and not all other possible things? Why would only one version of the afterlife exist, and not others? Why not all possible versions?

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the "Many-Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, which essentially states that every possible version of "the universe" exists, extrapolated to mean that "the universe" any individual experiences (or "inhabits") at any given moment exists on a matrix-like continuum of actual, infinite universes, where every possible quantum variation is real and is played out. (There is a whole theory about how we move through these universes continually, called "reality transurfing," by Vadim Zeland.)

If you are worried about "what the afterlife is like," I suggest you might consider adopting this particular Infinitist perspective. From this perspective, there is no "finding out" what "the real" afterlife is like; all versions of it exist (again, meaning they can all be experienced as being as real as any other.) Or, call it the "Many Worlds" theory/interpretation of the afterlife: all possible afterlives exist in an infinite continuum or matrix of realities.

From this perspective, you can allow anyone their version of the afterlife to be just as real as the afterlife you imagine, because if you can imagine it, your preferred afterlife exists and is as available to be experienced as 100% real as any other. Under Infinitism, there's no need to compete or argue with anyone, or be fearful or stressed about any version of the afterlife other people advocate for; they are all available to live in.

At ARED (Afterlife Research and Education,) over at Craig Hogan's Seek Reality Online, even at the Soul Phone adjacent website Soul Proof/Greater Reality, "spiritual" perspectives are constantly promoted throughout that information. Is this fundamentally any different than going to Catholic school or an Islamic madrasa to get educated about a subject like the afterlife?

One might argue that the difference is in the evidence provided by the dead via mediumship and the prolific astral projectors that have regularly visited the afterlife, and from NDE information.

But is it? Let's look at the evidence.

From the astral projectors: they universally report that the vast majority of the dead that they have directly observed demonstrate no significant greater interest in spirituality or religion than is observed in the general population here. In fact, the evidence from those reports indicate that people who die here appear to largely carry on with their "normal" lives as they lived them here, albeit often with a few significant improvements.

From the dead themselves, via various forms of mediumship: do they report "more spiritual" lives, interests or beliefs? For the most part, no. They overwhelmingly describe living normal lives there, often maintaining interest in the lives of their loved ones here. They do normal physical things, have jobs, social activities, entertainment activities, pursue normal interests, often doing things there they could not do here, for various reasons.

While NDEs are often "spiritually transforming," the long-dead virtually never report going through those kinds of experiences when they die. They often don't even know that they have died and have to be convinced of it, usually by meeting some long-dead friend or family member or childhood pet.

The idea of a "life review" comes largely from NDEs (and probably some "judgement" influences from religion,) but the kind of "life reviews" that the spiritual community has latched onto very rarely occurs in NDEs, and are virtually never mentioned by the dead when they describe their deaths.

The evidence appears to indicate that when people die, there is a natural "gravity" or "magnetism" that draws essentially "like-minded" people together into communities and matching locations/environments. Is that necessarily a "spiritual law," or can it also be equally well-understood as a natural mental/psychological law under a different ontological paradigm, such as Idealism? I suppose calling it either is largely a matter of semantics and ideological preference.

Personally, I don't consider myself or my views or experiences to be spiritual in any way, but that's because I apply an ontological Idealism/psychological perspective. You might ask, "What's the problem, if these are just different ways of looking at and describing the same thing?"

Here's the problem: I'm sure the teachers at madrasas and Catholic schools believe that they are also helping people properly understand the "facts" of the nature of existence and the afterlife by blending that information into the education of people. The evidence appears to indicate that Islam, Christianity, and other religions and spiritualties are alive and well in the afterlife, so it's not like those people are misleading or lying to their students, at least not as far as they know.

It appears from the evidence that, apparently, virtually any deeply-held belief or view can be experienced as entirely "real" in what we call "the afterlife." That's a very interesting aspect of the afterlife, especially when it comes to "personal reporting" of an individual's experiences in the afterlife, be they the long-dead or prolific astral projectors. Are they experiencing "objective reality" that applies to everyone universally, or are they just experiencing an entirely malleable infinite field of personally responsive, informational potential that provides experiences that suit their "inner nature" or deep psychological structure?

Back to "the problem:" spiritual or religious messaging baked into the afterlife information from sources claiming and even being named as "neutral" sites of observation, research and education about the afterlife, IMO and IME interacting with a LOT of people over the past 8 years, do a great disservice to people by presenting that spiritual messaging, either explicitly or via very reasonable and commonplace inference, as "facts" about the afterlife and existence.

In that, those places and sources are no different than a Catholic school or a madrasa. People come for unbiased, neutral information and what they get is this: life reviews, karma, hierarchies of spiritual levels, spiritual progress, soul-groups, soul families, soul contracts, unity consciousness, ego dissolution, "higher and lower vibration," becoming less attached to our Earthly pleasures and desires; we're asked to accept that our daughter in one life can be our wife in another life (does anyone in the spiritual community understand how utterly repulsive that thought is to ordinary people like me?)

After my wife died, I was attacked viciously (well, as viciously as one can be attacked in an online environment) in "afterlife" groups for just wanting to continue my loving, romantic relationship with my (then) recently deceased wife. I was told I was "holding her back" and that I needed to "let her go," like she was on a tight schedule and I was preventing her from getting on the bus to some other location.

In the FB group ARED, every week we get a spiritual sermon from Silver Birch (or whatever his name is.) It's like being hungry and going to the local free meal center to find out it's run by a church and you have to listen to a sermon first. No, I don't have to listen to it or read it, but this site and the others I mention don't put up a cross or a star and crescent to identify themselves as being places that promote spiritual beliefs. Books about the afterlife don't apply a warning sticker about the spiritual beliefs the book also promotes in its pages.

It's apparent to me that the (stealth-infused spiritual) afterlife communities have absolutely no idea just how toxic their spiritual messaging is to a LOT of ordinary people that are primarily looking to alleviate their grief and/or fear of death. I've spent the last 8 years basically performing psychological field triage on hundreds of people traumatized by their looking for supportive evidence and information and running into all this spiritual messaging everywhere they go.

I have to assure them: from the evidence, all that spiritual stuff doesn't matter for regular people without any strong religious or spiritual beliefs. When you die, as long as you're not a serial killer or someone who gleefully runs around deliberately harming people, you'll most likely find yourself in a nice, comfortable place that feels like home, surrounded by or quickly meeting your loved ones, pets, etc. It doesn't matter how "spiritual" you are, you'll be fine. You'll have a physical body, you'll be in a physical environment, you can still enjoy having and doing all the things you love and enjoy here, there, and you can live that way as long as you like."

People are often afraid of reincarnation; I tell them what I've gleaned from the evidence: reincarnation is voluntary. If you don't want to reincarnate, just say "no," and don't let anyone talk you into it.

Simple, direct stuff, derived from the evidence. In my experience, that's the entirety of what 99% of the people in grief or in fear of death want to know about the afterlife and, as far as I can tell, from the evidence, that's all true.

Look, I have ecstatic experiences daily, sometimes several times a day. When I reach across "the veil" to my wife, I am filled with a wonderful mix of physical, emotional and psychological sensation and experience that, no matter how tired I am, I literally leap up off the couch or out of bed and dance around the room in pure joy like an idiot. It feels like my body and brain are going to explode from sheer joy, love and happiness. It's overwhelming and it always brings me to tears it's so beautiful.

I don't proselytize that as a "spiritual" experience or as "the way" for everyone. I don't expect that "everyone" should try to find their romantic soul-mate or that existence itself is built around finding your soul-mate and fulfilling that relationship (as Swedenborg claims.) I don't claim it is THE highest level you can get to (again, as Swedenborg claimed.) It just works for me, in my personal life and experience. Maybe someone else gets that same thrill by playing video games or engaging in sex with a lot of different partners or preparing gourmet food. I don't know what does it for other people, or even if that kind of experience would be what they consider the ultimate experience. If reaching "Unity Consciousness" does the trick, as apparently a lot of spiritual people believe and want to reach, go for it. It's fine, I don't have a problem with it.

It's just when people start claiming their way is the only way for everyone, they're entering cult/zealot territory.

My main point here: be forewarned and advised that when you go out into the world looking for unbiased information and evidence about the afterlife, know the difference between the evidence and observations and spiritual interpretations/messaging, because you're likely to run into it everywhere you look.

There appears to still exist a common myth that we don't have physical bodies in the afterlife.

While there are certainly places in the afterlife where you can exist without a physical body, multi-categorical evidence from around the world accumulated over the past 100+ years clearly indicates that most people, when they die, either immediately or quickly have a fully functioning physical body, and that it is more solid, and more real, than our physical bodies here.

The fact of the matter is, what we call our "physical bodies" here are anything but "physical" in the traditional sense of the word. They are comprised 99.9999999999999% empty space (yes, that's an actual figure from science) and the remainder of what is actually there is nothing more, at the fundamental level, than probabilistic fields that don't even really exist physically except as patterns of interaction.

Did you know walking through a solid brick wall here, in this world, is not prevented by any physical law? It's just very unlikely to occur. That's correct. Look it up for yourself.

People also seem to think we don't have hormones, or internal organs, or common human personality traits and emotions in the afterlife. Where is the evidence that supports these ideas? That may be true in some areas of the afterlife, or in some situations, but there is considerable evidence at least for continuation of personality and all of our emotions for most people when they die.

I've never read where anyone cut open an astral body to see what's inside; perhaps I missed that in some literature somewhere. But then, since our physical bodies there are reported to be more solid, and more real, perhaps they have less than 99.9999999999999% empty space comprising them. That might be why our astral bodies are reported to be extremely difficult to injure and don't age, and are far more energetic than our bodies here. That may be why they aren't subject to disease and decay like our bodies here.

These two papers culminate 30 years of ongoing afterlife research by Dr. Gary Schwartz and his team scientifically proving the existence of the afterlife. They have made it past the peer-review process and will be published in 6-9 months in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

This research, reportedly, definitively proves - inasmuch as science "definitively proves" anything - that individual consciousness, memory, knowledge and personality survive physical, permanent death.

Between 70 and 80% of everyone who has ever lived on the planet (via various forms of research) have believed in the afterlife.

You might be thinking, whoa, buddy, belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Most people who "think they know" that there is an afterlife were just conditioned to think that way by religion or spiritual beliefs. Knowledge is based on evidence, you say. It's different from just "belief."

Okay, Let's go with that. Let's exclude everyone who merely "believes" that there is an afterlife (or that there is not an afterlife) based on such conditioning, and just go with people whose knowledge is based on evidence of some kind. Let's limit our "we" to only mean "those whose knowledge is based on evidence."

First off, there is over 100 years of multi-categorical evidence from around the world that the afterlife exists. Here is a short outline of that evidence.

Now, here is an outline of the evidence that indicates that there is no afterlife:

That's correct. There is no such evidence, because the assertion "there is no afterlife" is an irrational claim of a universal negative. As such, it cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever.

So "we," who base our claim of knowledge on actual evidence, can rightfully claim to know there is an afterlife.

So yes, "we" (the people we are counting that are familiar with the evidence) know there is an afterlife. (Remember, we're not counting people who just believe one way or another for non-evidential reasons, which includes everyone who asserts that there is no afterlife.)

The proper question, then, is: why do some people who are at least somewhat familiar with the evidence "not know" that there is an afterlife? Why do they doubt that evidence, when there is literally zero evidence to the contrary, AND when it is by far the most common belief to ever exist in the world? Why do they not at least believe that there is an afterlife?

The reason, IMO, is that You Have Been Gaslighted and Lied To By Materialist Scientists and Skeptics into a powerful psychological state of doubt and fear and thinking that belief in the afterlife is silly, superstitious, unevidenced, unintelligent and unsophisticated. That's a link to this explanation, but in short: you have been psychological conditioned by the cult of materialism, which has taken over the institutions of Academia and Science (at least in Westernized countries) into thinking "materialism" is a scientific, grounded, intelligent and even "proven" belief.

It is not. There is no evidence whatsoever for materialism because it's not, and has never been, a scientific theory. It has only risen to dominance in those institutions over the past 50-75 years; prior to that, virtually no one in academia or science was a materialist, and by far most at least believed in the afterlife. About 100 years ago, four of the greatest scientific minds in history examined the evidence available at the time for the afterlife for the purpose of debunking it, and came away 100% convinced that it had been proven to the point of being a scientific fact.

By all available evidence, the afterlife has been demonstrated to be a fact. "We" know this. Why don't you?

Physicalism is impossible to prove, or to demonstrate, or even to gather evidence in favor of, because all experience and information only occurs within mind, within subjective conscious experience. There is literally no means by which to escape that to demonstrate anything exists outside of it.

This makes any form of dualism and dual-aspect "mysterious" monism also impossible to demonstrate or acquire evidence of.

Meanwhile, idealism is the only ontology that is literally impossible to disprove, or gather evidence in contradiction of, because, literally, all evidence and information and experience necessarily occurs entirely within mind and conscious experience.

William Murray [aka WintyreFraust] and Mary Beth Spann Mank are the co-founders of the Facebook group "Love After Life," which is dedicated to serving the community of those who have had their spouse/romantic partner die, and who wish to continue a committed, romantic relationship with their partners for the rest of their lives and beyond.

More broadly than that, William and Mary Beth represent a more secular, non-spiritual, non-religious perspective about life, death and the afterlife, which is - as they see it - both unnecessary and often problematic. It seems every source of information and thought about these things is infused, to one degree or another, with spiritual or religious interpretations, dogma, ideology and beliefs. While that may comfort and be of value to many, it is also a source of confusion, pain and suffering to those who are in grief and trying to get information about the afterlife and learn how to interact and communicate with their loved ones there.

William and Mary Beth do not claim to be authorities on any of these subjects, gurus, psychics, mediums, grief counselors or "spiritually enlightened." They are just two people who had the love of their lives die, and found a way through the devastating grief back to a very happy, joyful, fulfilling and satisfying ongoing relationship with their respective romantic partners, Irene and Paul. They have and countless conversations over the past 8-9 years about these topics, which has proved very helpful both to them and to others in the group.

They do not record the group Zoom meetings of the group in order to protect the privacy and anonymity of members, but this leaves out a great many of the members who cannot attend those meetings, and they cannot be shared with the public at large. To address this, this additional new Zoom meeting format has been created specifically to do the best they can in bringing those conversations to a wider audience.

These conversations are not planned out or scripted. They don't have talking points or any significant preplanned order. These videos are raw and unscripted and free-wheeling. they're not trying to educate or teach anyone anything; they are just offering these conversations, based on their experiences, perspectives and views, to members of the Love After Life group who cannot attend the regular Zoom meetings, and to anyone outside of the group that might resonate with the information and be comforted by it.

I see this comment all the time in this forum: "Nobody knows."

I agree that nobody knows everything about the afterlife; I doubt that anyone knows everything about anything. We certainly don't know everything about the Earth, for example, and it's been directly examined and investigated for as long as people have existed.

But FFS, people, some things are known about the afterlife.

How is that knowledge acquired? From people who live there and from people who visit the afterlife from here. We're not talking about a few people, we're talking about vast numbers of people, from every walk of life, throughout history, from every corner of the world, including some of the most credible people to have ever lived; including many scientists, and including many former materialists and hardcore afterlife skeptics.

Are there some disparities between these reports? Yes, but all this means is that what we call "the afterlife" is a really big, diverse place. Of course there's going to be "disparities" between these reports. If we called up 1000 random numbers around the Earth, we'd get 1000 reports with different content in those reports about what life is like just on Earth. Some of it, maybe a lot of it, will match, and from these commonalities and disparities we can get some ideas, gather some knowledge, about some things in the afterlife.

One bit of well-established knowledge is that many, if not most, people who die here find themselves either immediately, or very quickly, in a physical body in a physical environment. They are still themselves. They usually feel like they have "woken up" and have "come home," or they are just confused about where they are and how they got there. Some people die and find themselves standing or floating near their dead body here, but soon a loved one or someone like a helper or a guide comes along and the dead person quickly transitions into the above-described afterlife landscape.

Virtually every scientist that has ever actually committed themselves to researching any category of afterlife research, even with the intent of "debunking" it, has walked away convinced of its existence, even though expressing that view usually ends their mainstream science careers due to materialist bias in the scientific community.

So: yes, we know there is an afterlife (and by "we", I mean the people that have actually taken the time to seriously research and investigate the evidence and/or have had personal experiences sufficient to prove its existence to us,) and yes, we do know at least some things about at least some areas in the afterlife, and what it is like - generally speaking - to live in those areas after we die.

Life, the afterlife, reality, existence, explained. Signs and synchronicities - explained. Hard problem of consciousness - solved. Fine tuning problem - solved. Quantum mechanics and the role of the observer - clarified. Mind-matter interaction problem - erased. Diversity of afterlife experiences - explained. All in less than 70 pages, and free to read.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aBpDY0YmMgT323iLrS4WhSqu3451uiHD/view?usp=sharing