#0 · Mar 09, 2005, 23:47 · Telos
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
I keep wanting to quote from it, but I think every sentence is important. Please read every sentence and give it your full and open attention. This article is a call to action for both sides to work together.
---
I asked to have this thread moved from the News and Media section because I believe it's integral to advancing our understanding astral consciousness.
How does the article express that? Well, it doesn't specifically... but there is the appearance of a great divide in our consciousness. Astral studies deserve their place in science, but they currently do not have that place.
Why? Instead of casting blame at one side, I'm sure that together we can figure out why, and unite with our other half.
#1 · Mar 10, 2005, 00:48 · -lines-
That's about all for now,
c
--
<edit>
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. It's hard to believe in something that cannot be proven. Trying to disprove vague ideas or concepts also rings true to me.
#2 · Mar 10, 2005, 00:49 · alexd
Has anyone read any of her books? Her future book could be interesting if she elaborates on what was in the article.
I think a problem is that sceptics demand for something to be brought to light so that it can be proven scientifically. This is a problem because there is no way to "prove" that prayer works for example. I know that prayer does work but how do you convince a sceptic? You can't.
Another problem is that only mass ideas are accepted into the common norm. Science has a natural tendency to trample over any new ideas from spiritual circles - or in fact anything that has a touch of vagueness to it.
I do agree with her in the fact that both cultures do have their flaws. I think it's important for every individual to strive for balance between both cultures and to find their own truth.
Alex
#3 · Mar 13, 2005, 00:51 · -lines-
#4 · Mar 13, 2005, 01:06 · Telos
Thank you MajorTom, lines, and alexd. A lot to think about in this thread.
#5 · Mar 13, 2005, 03:16 · -lines-
"Always look on the bright side of life." - Some Monty Python movie
#6 · Mar 13, 2005, 11:24 · Telos
The article mentions that, when Randi first started doing his stuff, instead of helping to communicate with new agers, he caused a backlash (because he was kind of mean about it). As a result there was less communication.
If there's waffling, it seems like people are waffling between two sides, but there shouldn't even be two sides. We're all on the same side, which is truth, aren't we?
#7 · Mar 13, 2005, 12:43 · Frank
The author makes the same core mistake that virtually all people make is that they believe spirituality is something you do . When in fact it is something you become . They confuse the symbolism with the actual becoming, the map is not the territory and all that.
But I would even argue that their symbolism is a misnomer in itself. That's just how so far off track these people are. They are not New Age at all. They are just a miserable regurgitation of the old age in a modern-day guise.
Ultimately, what you end up with are two religions fighting against each other, each one thinking of themselves as a victim of the other. Same old story in other words (read, hardly New Age). These people always tend to feel so "in tune" so "connected" when in fact they know next to nothing. She is announced as a former "leader" of the New Age movement. But in my view she was just another one-eye in the land of the blind.
That's why I'm doing my best to try and get more people into the Phasing approach and trying to get them Phasing to Focus 4 of consciousness. This is the area where you can find out the Truth for yourself, rather than having to keep trying to sift through all the mountains of half-baked tosh.
Yours,
Frank
#8 · Mar 13, 2005, 18:21 · -lines-
#9 · Mar 14, 2005, 04:54 · yothu
One thing I'm still curious about is "Whole Life Expo (which I call the Hell Life Expo, but that's another story)". I'd like to hear that story
#10 · Mar 14, 2005, 06:04 · Tombo
For me it is a simple as that.
#11 · Mar 14, 2005, 10:07 · catmeow
The "skeptical community" uses very poor science (I know, I'm a scientist) to debunk paranormal claims, while the "new age" community are far too over-credulous and willing to acept as paranormal, things which have simple normal explanations.
As an example of poor science, CSICOP recently debunked a Russian girl who claims to be able to diagnose health complaints in people by simply looking at them. She achieved test results with a statistical probability of 50:1 against, and this was considered by the "scientists" to be a "failure".
In other words if 50 people were given the same test and guessed at random, only 1 would achieve the success rate she did.
The test itself involved a sample of only 7 "unhealthy" people, and as such was statistically utterly insignificant by all scientific standards. The yardstick set for "success" was completely arbitrary and as such was also completely meaningless . Never the less, the results the girl achieved were in fact extra-ordinary when presented in statistical terms but were still dismissed as a failure by the "scientists". In fact they really should have arranged many more trials after seeing this result, to see how reproducible it was, but they didn't.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/X-ray.htm
This type of controlled trial would be laughed out of The Lancet if it were used as a clinical trial for some new drug.
It is extremely poor science. I could find many, many examples of poor science used to debunk the paranormal and then touted amongst the popular media as scientific proof that OBE's are hallucinations, and NDE's are caused by chemicals released in the brain.
All very very poor science.
I absolutely sympathise with skepticism but deplore this poor method.
But while the skeptics are debunking all things paranormal, there is one thing they have missed. There is one paranormal event we all know about which they ignore, and which they are utterly unable to debunk, or even to begin to explain. And that is the single greatest paranormal event of all time - Creation.
catmeow
#12 · Mar 14, 2005, 12:43 · mactombs
Also, having been a rigorous skeptic, I look at this article and see someone jumping from one extreme to another. Reading the article, it sounds more like a mid-life crises than anything. Skepticism as a "culture" sounds my warning bells right away.
Skepticism isn't a culture. It is:
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
You don't need to be organized to be a skeptic. If you do, then you've made the same error in my mind is any other organized religion. Most of the aggressive skeptics like CSICOP, Randi, Shermer come across as materialist-fundamentalists. The same applies to New Age on the deep end.
For OBEs and the like, it's not about becoming part of a culture. It's about experiences. If someone else needs for whatever reason to prove to you that your experiences can't possibly be real, well, then that's their problem.
#13 · Mar 14, 2005, 13:09 · Selski
Quote from: mactombs For OBEs and the like, it's not about becoming part of a culture. It's about experiences. If someone else needs for whatever reason to prove to you that your experiences can't possibly be real, well, then that's their problem.
Well said.
Sarah
#14 · Mar 14, 2005, 13:21 · Telos
There is such a thing as an "Astral Pulse culture" and there is such a thing as a "scientific culture" and there most definitely is such a thing as a "skeptic culture."
Culture is:
Quote 1a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.(Everything from 6 down is rather superfluous, but I might as well err on the side of thoroughness)
1b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
1c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
1d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3a. Development of the intellect through training or education.
3b. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
4. A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training.
5. Special training and development: voice culture for singers and actors.
6. The cultivation of soil; tillage.
7. The breeding of animals or growing of plants, especially to produce improved stock.
8a. The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium.
8b. Such a growth or colony, as of bacteria.
Quote from: mactombs For OBEs and the like, it's not about becoming part of a culture. It's about experiences.It's precisely about being a part of a culture. By mere mention of the word "OBE" you have participated in the culture of people who accept that term to describe a certain experience.
This does not denigrate OBE in any way. You can't not be part of a culture. Our goal is, I think, to integrate our cultures together, to communicate effectively, and share our knowledge of values about altered states of consciousness with the world.
In academic studies on International Business, there is a theory called "convergence," and it states that the many cultures of the world are coming together to form an organized world culture. That does not mean that the world culture necessarily invades and supplants your domestic culture, but that a new arena of ideas is created for your eventual participation.
The author of this article has acted in accordance with a convergence, in my opinion. She has stretched her consciousness to entertain the ideas of multiple groups of people and is taking action towards understanding.
Not only must I entertain the notion that not everyone is interested in truth (MajorTom) but now I must also entertain the notion that many of you in AP are not interested in the convergence of ideas and the unity of knowledge and experience.
#15 · Mar 14, 2005, 14:36 · mactombs
Quote It's precisely about being a part of a culture. By mere mention of the word "OBE" you have participated in the culture of people who accept that term to describe a certain experience.By being a social creature by nature, I suppose you could say that everything one does and says is part of culture. This is not the definition from which I made my arguments, as it is far too broad.
Quote The author of this article has acted in accordance with a convergence, in my opinion. She has stretched her consciousness to entertain the ideas of multiple groups of people and is taking action towards understanding.In my opinion she has not acted in accordance with convergence. She has flip-flopped. She has traded one for the other. She placates her new culture by telling them about her transition, and then furthers that with: if they could relate to New Agers better, then New Agers would be more readily helped by the clearly superior skeptic. What sounds to you like an attempt to bridge the gap sounds to me like manipulation of the type you read about in How To Make Friends and Influence People . She behaves like anyone trying to feel accepted by a new social group. She might as well be lying on her belly, licking the mouth of the Alpha.
Quote Not only must I entertain the notion that not everyone is interested in truth (MajorTom) but now I must also entertain the notion that many of you in AP are not interested in the convergence of ideas and the unity of knowledge and experience.Yes, Mr. Borg. We value our uniqueness.
Honestly, though, just how realistic do you find this convergence to be? Or wanted? Do you really think that there can be convergence? And if so, at what cost? Do you think introducing Western philosophy and a deluge of commercialism to Australian bushmen is going to result in convergence, or result in extinguishing and assimilation? Isn't convergence quite similar to how the U.S. viewed its treatment of Native Americans? Now take a clear example of modern convergence: the Internet.
Consider, too, the benefits of variety. If there were genetic convergence in a species, that species probably wouldn't last long.
In the case of this article and convergence, it feels to me like the writer desires convergence to support her beliefs. She dislikes the doubt that comes with other people asserting dissidence to what she declares as Truth. Ah, if only there could only be one way of thinking! Then you wouldn't have to worry about the possibility of being wrong.
#16 · Mar 14, 2005, 15:56 · Telos
Quote from: mactombsThen you have a very narrow understanding of your own argument.Quote It's precisely about being a part of a culture. By mere mention of the word "OBE" you have participated in the culture of people who accept that term to describe a certain experience.By being a social creature by nature, I suppose you could say that everything one does and says is part of culture. This is not the definition from which I made my arguments, as it is far too broad.
Language and culture are truly inseparable. Since you're American, I know you probably don't speak a foreign language, so I understand that you may not be accustomed to this.
In this case, the languages we haven't learned are those used in math and science.
QuoteHow can you flip-flop between cultures?Quote The author of this article has acted in accordance with a convergence, in my opinion. She has stretched her consciousness to entertain the ideas of multiple groups of people and is taking action towards understanding.In my opinion she has not acted in accordance with convergence. She has flip-flopped. She has traded one for the other. She placates her new culture by telling them about her transition, and then furthers that with: if they could relate to New Agers better, then New Agers would be more readily helped by the clearly superior skeptic. What sounds to you like an attempt to bridge the gap sounds to me like manipulation of the type you read about in How To Make Friends and Influence People . She behaves like anyone trying to feel accepted by a new social group. She might as well be lying on her belly, licking the mouth of the Alpha.
I'm reminded of a Japanese-American woman who talked about how she had to "change channels" inside her head whenever she travelled to her home country. Women are treated very differently in Japan, not only with respect to women in America but with respect to Japanese men. It's evident in the structure of the Japanese language.
Is she a flip-flopper? No. She's a Japanese-American. Is she manipulating anyone? No. She's communicating honestly in the confines of her cultures.
QuoteValuing uniqueness is totally in tandem with convergence. It's the recognition and acceptance of diversity that allows us to connect.Quote Not only must I entertain the notion that not everyone is interested in truth (MajorTom) but now I must also entertain the notion that many of you in AP are not interested in the convergence of ideas and the unity of knowledge and experience.Yes, Mr. Borg. We value our uniqueness. :)
Get out of the trees, Mr. Monkey. :P
#17 · Mar 14, 2005, 16:42 · Nostic
Personally, I'm not fond of labels, so I don't like attaching myself to any one group or culture. There are some people for whom their race, for instance, is their entire world. Everything the do and think about is circled around their race. For others it may be their religion, or perhaps even their job or sexuality. I think we'll really achieve "convergence" when we no longer feel the need to attach ourselves to these very limiting labels. We can all take and learn from everything we experience around us, but why attach yourself so strongly? I, for instance, am not a religious person, but I do think very highly of Buddhism (perhaps the only religion I think fondly of). However, I'd never say that I am a Buddhist. No, there are just certain Buddhist principles that I agree with. But attaching myself to that, or any religion, I feel would cut me off from an even greater reality. In Zen, there is a saying that goes "kill the Buddha". You musk kill him even, because your attachment to his words can be the very thing that keeps you from enlightenment, even though those words are precisely to teach you how to achieve enlightenment. See what can happen? If the master points you in the direction you must go, you must go in that direction, and not grab on to the finger which he points with.
Anyway, the point is, as long as we attach ourselves to labels or groups or concepts, there will always be conflict. Attachment will always cause conflict, because you can only attach yourself to limited things- things that only represent a piece of the bigger picture.
#18 · Mar 14, 2005, 16:56 · mactombs
Quote Then you have a very narrow understanding of your own argument.Wow, you come out swinging with so many assumptions! Perhaps you know nothing of my local culture, because if you did, you'd know that is the number one state in the US for people who speak a variety of international languages fluently.
Language and culture are truly inseparable. Since you're American, I know you probably don't speak a foreign language, so I understand that you may not be accustomed to this.
I'm not going to engage in a nickel-and-dime line-for-line argument with you for the hand of the intellectual princess.
I don't make arguments to see who wins the debate. If you don't find any value in considering my input, please tell me upfront so I don't waste any more time.
#19 · Mar 14, 2005, 20:33 · Telos
And since I'm an American as well, I thought my particular statement was closer to self-deprecation.
Quote from: Nostic I get the feeling Telos that you're so focused on "convergence" because you yourself are trapped between both worlds- the world of the skeptic and the world of the new ager.You're probably right. Thank you for pointing that out to me - it was very astute of you.
Quote I think we'll really achieve "convergence" when we no longer feel the need to attach ourselves to these very limiting labels.That's how I feel. It's just that I don't think people understand what culture is and just how much power it has to bring people together - and set them apart. I think it's possible to have a binding world culture centered on dexterity, cosmopolitanism, and diplomacy, while still retaining intricate branches of subcultures, and still be open to the potential of creating entirely new cultures.
The Japanese-American woman I mentioned earlier is not just a Japanese woman nor is she just an American woman. She's transcended the boundaries to become a woman of the world. We should all be so dexterous. We should be ourselves, for sure, but we should be ourselves for all countries. For all fields of knowledge. For all planes of existence.
#20 · Mar 14, 2005, 23:16 · mactombs
Quote Sorry, mactombs... you called me "Mr. Borg" and I took a lot of offense at that. You gave me a nickel and I gave you a dime.That's fair. I meant Borg jokingly, BTW.
Quote The Japanese-American woman I mentioned earlier is not just a Japanese woman nor is she just an American woman. She's transcended the boundaries to become a woman of the world. We should all be so dexterous. We should be ourselves, for sure, but we should be ourselves for all countries. For all fields of knowledge. For all planes of existence.When you say for all planes of existence, it makes me wonder. Firstly, let's say I just died. What happens? Am I really stoked that I finally managed to have a good OBE? Or do I say, "Oh I remember this." Do I realize what my condition is, do I realize what I am, or what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it? How much do I remember from before?
I guess that's what the transitional focus in Frank's model is for. I suppose the focus would help bring about this transcendence you speak of, but considering the enormous, probably limitless variety out of FoC1, that's got to be some serious transitioning and transcending. And how much of who I am now is going to retain individuality through it?
Thinking about being myself for all planes of existence, transcending the boundaries of this life, that's really something to think about. Quite honestly, I don't have a clue how that would work out.
To even transcend the boundaries to become someone of the world, that process alone would take some serious care to go through that without sacrificing important aspects.
Bridging the gap historically hasn't gone so well, either - there's always been conquerors and the conquered. Except in cases where it mostly just results in interbreeding... But that's straying a bit far from topic ... although, interbreeding between skeptics and New Agers might ... naw.
Anyway, it's not so much that the idea of convergence is faulty, it's that how to attain it is quite far beyond the capacity of humanity now, or at any time in written history.
#21 · Mar 15, 2005, 00:13 · Telos
You're right, it does seem beyond the reach of humanity. But the New Age ethos seems to revolve around the notion that we are capable of godlike things, and transcendence. Well, in my opinion, if you can't overcome and master the transition between multiple cultural and linguistic borders, you haven't transcended - you've escaped.
Okay. That's enough from me about that. I'm glad we're on comfortable terms again. lol
#22 · Mar 15, 2005, 05:29 · catmeow
Quote from: mactombs In my opinion she has not acted in accordance with convergence. She has flip-flopped. She has traded one for the other. She placates her new culture by telling them about her transition, and then furthers that with: if they could relate to New Agers better, then New Agers would be more readily helped by the clearly superior skeptic. What sounds to you like an attempt to bridge the gap sounds to me like manipulation of the type you read about in How To Make Friends and Influence People. She behaves like anyone trying to feel accepted by a new social group. She might as well be lying on her belly, licking the mouth of the Alpha.Accurate and very well expressed. Reading the article it's easy to see that her agenda is one of "I come to praise Cesar not to bury him". Her article is typical of CSICOP. I recently toyed with the idea of subscribing to CSICOP, because we need balance in our viewpoint, but the more I read their articles the more I realise that their agenda seems to be to debunk rather than to investigate. Never the less, I still visit the CSICOP site, and I still might subscribe, it has some interesting info on it, even though it is biased.
catmeow
#23 · Mar 15, 2005, 12:47 · Telos
I subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer when I heard that Bill Nye was a member of CSICOP. He was one of my childhood heroes, a man who made science fun and interesting for me. He still is kind of a hero to me, actually, now that he's moved on to more adult shows.
I let my subscription run out because, actually, there wasn't very much information in it! It was very thin and only came out bi-monthly. The articles were by no means exemplary and not very academic. Still, it never let me down otherwise - I never had the suspicion that they were closed-minded. How could they be closed-minded if they took so much interest in paranormal phenomena? Their contempt is clearly directed at individuals who masquerade their ideas as having a basis in established science.
JoWo teeters on the edge with Quantum Metaphysics, I think. Although he claims it is "hard-nosed," at the end of the day he still refers to it as a philosophy. It doesn't make much sense to be skeptical of a philosophy. Either you subscribe to it or you don't. So JoWo is not the type of person CSICOP would have issues with.
catmeow, I have not been able to find the official CSICOP article for that case you mentioned. Do you have it on you?
Quote from: catmeowYou're only looking on the surface. Of course, she's clearly praising the skeptical viewpoint and exposes what she believes are flaws in the new age movement. What's wrong with that?Quote from: mactombs In my opinion she has not acted in accordance with convergence. She has flip-flopped. She has traded one for the other. She placates her new culture by telling them about her transition, and then furthers that with: if they could relate to New Agers better, then New Agers would be more readily helped by the clearly superior skeptic. What sounds to you like an attempt to bridge the gap sounds to me like manipulation of the type you read about in How To Make Friends and Influence People. She behaves like anyone trying to feel accepted by a new social group. She might as well be lying on her belly, licking the mouth of the Alpha.Accurate and very well expressed. Reading the article it's easy to see that her agenda is one of "I come to praise Cesar not to bury him".
It looks to me like she's evolved her methodology of knowing truth - from one of passive, blind-credulity to one of unchallengeable rigor. Again, what's wrong with that?
I find one of her last paragraphs especially pertinent.
Quote from: Karla McLaren We love to say that we embrace mystery in the New Age culture, but that's a cultural conceit and it's utterly wrong. In actual fact, we have no tolerance whatsoever for mystery. Everything from the smallest individual action to the largest movements in the evolution of the planet has a specific metaphysical or mystical cause. In my opinion, this incapacity to tolerate mystery is a direct result of my culture's disavowal of the intellect. One of the most frightening things about attaining the capacity to think skeptically and critically is that so many things don't have clear answers. Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety.Critical thinkers don't create answers just to manage their anxiety.
How many questions from curious people are given answers like, "your heart chakra is too open," or "you are not in union with your higher self," or "you are reaping what you have sown from a previous life," or "your higher self chose this path for you," etc... all are answers that settle the mind of some pillow-like fluffy cloud, effectively closing the mind and leaving it completely bereft of mystery. For those of you who think there is mystery in concepts like the higher self and chakras, have you ever thought that's maybe because they're wrong? Or, at the very least, faulty in some way?
Frank, only a few months ago I was hearing you say things like (paraphrasing), "but I'm still learning," and "I am a student as well." Can I just confirm with you that you are indeed still a student and still learning?
#24 · Mar 15, 2005, 14:17 · Frank
Yes, I remain very much a student and I'm learning new things all the time.
Yours,
Frank
#25 · Mar 15, 2005, 14:41 · Telos
#26 · Mar 17, 2005, 06:33 · catmeow
Quote from: Telos Thank you, catmeow. I haven't expressed how much I value your viewpoint on such matters. (I really value it).Aaaawwwww..... thanks!
Apparently the CSICOP investigation of Natasha Demkina ("the girl with the x-ray eyes") will be featured in the March/April 2005 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer and also in a future issue of The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine . Here's where I found this info:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/
I saw the (UK) Channel 4 documentary about the CSICOP investigation and at first I thought the investigator, Richard Wiseman, seemed pretty reasonable and patient with her. I didn't think they set out to discredit her at all. But when the program finished I thought to myself "what happened? - she achieved a 50:1 result and this was a failure?". The more I thought about it, the more I was puzzled that this was considered a failure. This view was confirmed by other engineering and scientific people I know who also saw the program. I do believe it was a poor scientific test.
To be fair to CSICOP, the girl would make a difficult and emotional subject and would be difficult to test further. But the result could hardly be considered a failure. More of a "still don't know". However, if you now do a google on "x-ray eyes" +CSICOP you will find a whole raft of articles gloating over this girls alleged "failure" when scientifically tested. This I am sure is why many people hesitate to take Randi's $1 million challenge.
Quote from: Telos You're only looking on the surface. Of course, she's clearly praising the skeptical viewpoint and exposes what she believes are flaws in the new age movement. What's wrong with that?Actually, nothing wrong with either of those things. But she has in my opinion flipped "camps", without apparantly changing "cultures". To explain the last sentance, she now belongs to the skeptical camp, but her culture is firmly rooted in New Ageism. She makes a great play of this, and really the whole point of this play is to win over other New Ageists to her way of thinking. It's a little dishonest and it's definitely a psychological technique to "win friends and influence people".
It looks to me like she's evolved her methodology of knowing truth - from one of passive, blind-credulity to one of unchallengeable rigor. Again, what's wrong with that?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do this, in fact it's very good technique. But I'm a little suspicious, because now I'm not clear what her position really is? Is she really open-minded or has she completely flipped? She doesn't seem to say.... Maybe she does say and someone can point to this in her article.
Personally I think we need to have both camps. It's healthy to have people with extreme viewpoints because this encourages discussion (argument!). Hopefully the majority sits somewhere between these two extremes and listens to (and benefits from) arguments from both sides...? This really is where most of my friends sit. But a problem occurs when one side (the "scientists") have too much power and can easily discredit the other side with a simple say-so.
catmeow
#27 · Mar 17, 2005, 17:18 · Frank
Yep, good point. Took the words right out of my mouth.
Yours,
Frank
#28 · Mar 17, 2005, 18:37 · Telos
Quote Maybe I'll find a way to capitalize on my culture's thirst for answers, and my people's capacity to work with conflicting information (metaphysical ideas change every six months or so and therefore people in my culture are very accustomed to switching mental gears). I have faith now that I didn't have before: faith in your culture's concern and integrity , and faith in my culture's curiosity and capacity to learn new things.She wants to help bring foundation and integrity to New Age curiosity and quench our thirst for knowledge. She has "faith" that the two sides can ally and compliment one another. What's more, that they need each other.
Now, honestly, does that sound like switching camps or uniting camps?
In previous paragraphs:
Quote I think I have found a way to speak across the chasm, to you . I am now learning to perform that same feat in reverse - to talk to people in my culture about your culture, but that's a lot harder ...Gee. I wonder why. Maybe it's because people think when you ally with a skeptic you've betrayed them and "switched camps."
Quote ... Watching people in the New Age has been as hard on me as it has been on you. Underneath all the magic, the wise ghosts, and the never-ending remedies lies a well of pain and loneliness that is immense and overwhelming. I always saw it - I always saw the excruciating truth of my culture, and I thought I could help. That I didn't help - not truly - is possibly the greatest devastation of my life. I need to heal from being a healer.So far, I have been able to sum up her goals as follows (in no particular order):
My voice was an important one in my culture; therefore, I've got to take responsibility for what I've done. I need to educate myself and come back into the fray in a healthy and respectful way. Maybe by the time I've organized my thoughts , a bridging culture will already exist. Maybe I'll find a way to be heard - or to translate the skeptical lexicon in such a way that people in my culture can access it without being insulted or shamed . One thing I'll be sure to stress is the fact that there is actually more beauty, wonder, brilliance, and mystery in science than there is in the mystical world.
One of the biggest falsehoods I've encountered is that skeptics can't tolerate mystery, while New Age people can. This is completely wrong, because it is actually the people in my culture who can't handle mystery - not even a tiny bit of it. Everything in my New Age culture comes complete with an answer , a reason, and a source. Every action, emotion, health symptom, dream, accident, birth, death, or idea here has a direct link to the influence of the stars, chi, past lives, ancestors, energy fields, interdimensional beings, enneagrams, devas, fairies, spirit guides, angels, aliens, karma, God, or the Goddess.
We love to say that we embrace mystery in the New Age culture, but that's a cultural conceit and it's utterly wrong...
1) Speak both ways across the chasm.
2) Form a bridging culture.
3) Introduce integrity to new age ideas.
4) Encourage new age curiosity.
5) Encourage healthy and respectful dialogue from skeptics.
6) Help new agers to critically handle mystery .
7) Take responsibility for problems she may have exacerbated.
8) Educate her self and others.
9) Remove the stigma of advocating a skeptical viewpoint, which denies the intellect.
10) To persuade others that there is actually more beauty, wonder, brilliance, and mystery in science than there is in the mystical world.
11) Empower new age people's quest to satisfy their thirst for knowledge.
12) Truly help people.
Still think she's not on our side?
She has made quite a bit of sacrifice. Obviously she did not "switch camps" for prestige or financial gain.
Quote It is possible that our two warring cultures will never build a bridge across the deep rift that divides us. I know that in my own case, the transition from my culture to yours was long, arduous, and deeply painful. It was not an easy traipse across a well-constructed bridge. In essence, I had to throw myself off a cliff. I had to leave behind my career, my income, my culture, my family, my friends, my health care practitioners, most of my business contacts, my past, and my future. I say this not to garner sympathy but to show what the leap truly entails. The New Age is a complete culture with its own rules, ideals, infrastructure, and social life . When I finally realized that my cultural training had me teetering on a foundation of candyfloss and dreams - and worse, that my work had encouraged others to teeter alongside me, I was inconsolable, yet I had absolutely no one to turn to.Frank, you have responded to "skepetics" by saying that they are only showing how little experience they have with AP. This is a reasonable decree, and I tend to subscribe to it as well. However, you arrived where you are now through years of study and critical examination of your experience. How is this woman not acting in accordance with your methodology?
I've made it, I think, through my rage and horror at my own complicity in helping people remain susceptible - and perhaps through my grief and despair (though that's more cyclical) about my own miseducation. Now I'm considering what to do from here. I've discovered in just the few (less than ten) conversations I've had with faith-based people that skeptical information is absolutely threatening and unwanted . What I didn't understand until recently is that when you start questioning these beliefs, there's a domino effect that eventually smacks into your whole house of cards - and nothing remains standing. Opening the questioning process is a very dangerous thing, and people in my culture seem to understand that on a subconscious level. In response to their extreme discomfort, I've become completely silent around believers - which is hard, because they make up most of my friends, family, and correspondents.
catmeow, you have a Ph.D. and have no doubt gained your experience through critical examination. Will you answer a similar question? How is she not on your side?
She's not even a member of CSICOP.
#29 · Mar 20, 2005, 09:15 · catmeow
Quote from: Telos How is she not on your side?I really don't have many issues with the article other than a gradually increasing feeling of unease as I read it. It's just the style of writing that makes me suspicious! That's all. She even admits it:
Quote from: Karla Mclaren When I wrote my books and recorded my audio programs, I had to write and speak so carefully that it took most people two or three readings to figure out that I was directly challenging many of the foundations upon which the New Age is built. Actually, my culturally sensitive capacity to attack without attacking and criticize without criticizing was so effective that some avid readers still don't know what I was saying.I actually believe that the author is genuinely trying to get a message across to New Agers, namely to be a bit more critical about things, but she does this in a subtle language which makes me doubt her. Which is a shame. The style of her writing makes me suspicious about her. Does she still believe in the possibility of the paranormal, but now applies healthy skepticism, or has she now decided it's all a load of baloney and wants her New Age friends to wake up to this fact?
She makes this statement:
Quote from: Karla Mclaren I started out in my youth, knowing (through direct experience) that the things I learned in the New Age and metaphysics were true, and that naysayers were just thatIs this what she used to believe or does she still believe this? Does this statement mean that she has had her own directly verifiable experiences which "prove" the paranormal, or has she now decided she was mistaken about these? It's impossible to tell.
So the only issue I have with the article is the writing style, which makes the author's position unclear. So to answer your question, if she falls into the "possible believer but skeptic" category then she is absolutely on my side. But if she falls into the "paranormal does not exist" position, then she is absolutely not on my side....
Good thread...
catmeow
#30 · Oct 18, 2006, 06:25 · Flannery
I am bumping it.