So we’re back again… On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing [...]
Here’s an interesting idea … The ‘process’ of critical thinking, of course, insists that the information presented is questioned. What research, by whom, when, for what reason? One of the problems facing those of us wanting to explore, for want of a better world, the paranormal is the fact that there is a wealth of [...]
Words mean what we agree they mean… I think most people reading this blog would agree with that statement and perhaps those same people would accept that there are some interesting limitations in our conversations. The need to group ideas together, to create labels, is a part and parcel of the way we use language [...]
Well folks we’re here… We’ve made it through Elenin which kinda fizzled out like a damp sparkler and we’re into 2012 and yes change is in the air with the NEW LOOK Rational Mystic Blog…. Ok, so I know January is all but over, however I have been neglecting this blog – mostly because of [...]
I found this on the net and thought you all might like to have a look and perhaps comment..
“If you’ve always suspected that you have extrasensory perception, here are six signs that you indeed might be psychicTHOSE WHO HAVE made a lifetime of the study of psychic phenomena suspect that most, if not all of us are psychic to one degree or another. I’m sure most of us can point to events in our lives that indicate instances of telepathy (communication of thoughts) or precognition (knowing what is going to happen).“
Perhaps it’s only happened once or a few times.
Perhaps, however, it happens to you quite frequently.
Can you then be considered truly, strongly psychic?
Here are six signs to look for.
1. You know the phone is going to ring and who is calling
We have all experienced this phenomenon, and when it happens once in awhile we can chalk it up to coincidence. Or perhaps there are people who call you regularly at expected times. Those instances we can dismiss.
But have you ever sensed a phone call from someone totally unexpected – perhaps someone you haven’t heard from in years? Then the phone rings and it is that person! This could be an indication of the psychic phenomenon known as precognition – knowing something before it happens. And if this kind of thing happens on a fairly regular basis, you might be psychic.
Rational Thought: Difficult to validate because of confirmation bias
2. You know your child, or someone else very close to you, is in trouble
We all worry about the safety our loved ones, especially when they are separated from us. Quite naturally, parents carry a deep concern about their children when they are at school, off with other children, or away on a trip. But we temper this worry or concern (or try to) with reason and an acknowledgment that our loved ones cannot always be under our supervision.
There have been many cases, however, in which a parent knows that her child has been injured or is in trouble. This is no ordinary worry. The feeling is so intense and persistent that the parent is compelled to check on the child – and sure enough, there has been an accident. Such a psychic connection has been documented between parent and child, spouses and partners, siblings and, of course, twins. If you have had such as experience, you might be psychic.
Rational Thought: Difficult to validate because of confirmation bias
3. You know a place before you go to it
Perhaps you have had the experience or going to a person’s house that you’ve never been to before, yet everything about it is familiar. This can happen when house shopping, too. You know exactly where every room is, what it looks like, and how it is decorated. You may even have knowledge of tiny details, such as chipped paint or unusual light fixtures. Yet you know you have never been there before.
It could be that you have been to the place before and have forgotten. Or perhaps this is a case of déjà vu – that eerie feeling that we’ve done or seen an exact thing before. But déjà vu is usually a fleeting feeling about a brief exchange of words, gestures or sights. It is rarely prolonged or vividly detailed. (See the book The Déjà Vu Enigma by Marie D. Jones and Larry Flaxman.) So if you have this knowing about a place you never been to before, you might be psychic.
Rational Thought : We ‘know’ that the mind recognises patterns and makes associations as one its primary cognitive functions. We also ‘know’ that so much information about the world is processed in the unconscious mind before being presented as ‘information’, ‘thoughts’, ‘ideas’, ‘understandings’. It is not inconcievable then, that the communcation between the unconscious and conscious mind causes a ‘perception stutter’ which gives the deja vu feeling. Subsquent re-tellings of the experience will include elements of cofabulation (with no real intent to decieve) and hence produce ‘false memories’ surrounding and about the initial experience.
4. You have prophetic dreams
We all dream, and we all have a variety of dreams about people we know, famous people, and even perhaps things that are going on in the world. So it stands to reason that just by chance we will have a dream about someone or something that later comes to pass (to one degree or another) in real life.
But do you often have dreams about yourself, friends and family, or even world events that soon come to pass in detail in real life? Prophetic dreams like this are reportedly often different than normal dreams. They are more lucid, vivid, detailed, and compelling. If so, you should write down these dreams right after you have them because you don’t want to forget them, and you want to have a record of them – and they can be evidence that you might be psychic
Rational Thought : The dream experience is a varied and dynamic, personal phenomena. As with deja vu it is not impossible to imagine that the brains wonderful ability to ‘pattern match’ connects fragmentary dream ‘memories’ to events as and when they occur in the future. There are accounts of accurate recordings from diaries about events being ‘foretold’ in dreams BUT I have yet to see unambiguous evidence of a dream journal which includes very specific information about a prophetic dream.Of course I have been shown, as evidence, accounts of a dream which contain vague elements and references to some event which subsequently occured but dream images like ‘a plane crash in a foreign place’, ‘people crying’, ‘suspected bombs’ can be linked to events that WILL occur at some point.
I’m not saying there is no evidence of accurate prophetic dreams, just that I haven’t seen any – yet.
.
5. You can sense or know something about an object (or person) just by touching it
Have you ever picked up an object that didn’t belong to you and you were overcome with a knowledge about that object – it’s history and who it belonged to? Likewise, have you shook the hand of a new acquaintance and instantly known all about them – where they’re from, what they do and what they are like?
It could be that you are just a highly perceptive person who can deduce information about an object or person just by looking at them and touching them. But if you are able to provide many accurate details about these things that you would otherwise have no possible way of knowing, you might have the rare kind of extrasensory perception known as psychometry – and you might be psychic.
Rational Thought : An interesting ability claimed by some psyhic readers. As with all psychic readings, for me the question is ‘where’ the information is ‘really’ coming from and where it is ‘claimed’ to be coming from.
Psychometry is one of those abilities that can be tested and I have not yet seen evidence that supports the notion that the ‘hits’ or ‘quality of information’ from such readings are specific enough and consistent enough to demonstrate this ‘ability’. Let’s do the tests folks!
6. You regularly tell your friends what is going to happen to them – and it does
Do you have a habit of telling friends and family about specific experiences they are going to have? Do you sometimes warn them ahead of time about dangers or circumstances that would not be in their best interest? Are you right more often than not?
Because we know our friends and family well, it certainly is logical to assume that we can sometimes predict was might happen to them – both good and bad. This is simply because we know their personalities, their habits and even some of their plans and we can make reasonable guesses. This is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about strong feelings that you have – that seem to come out of nowhere and are not based on anything you know about the person – about something that is about to happen to them. It’s a powerful feeling and you are compelled to tell them about it, even warn them if necessary. If those events come to pass, you might be psychic.
Rational Thought : Isn’t this the same as no 2? OK the relationships are different, but the processes could be the same.
I suspect there will be some who have not arrived at this sentence without having either strongly agreed, or viloently disagreed with the ‘rational comments’ above.
Here’s a test – if you’re currently thinking that my rationality is yet another example of how closed minded scientists can be then can I suggest you turn that mirror of ‘closed mindedness’ on yourself for a moment. Have you rejected the rational comments emotionally and hence been closed to another possibility?
As importantly have you emotionally agreed with every rational comment and seen them as supporting your own world view?
Closed mindedness comes in many colours and flavours.. both scientists and mystics can be accused of being closed minded and perhaps quite a lot are!
Skeptics ask questions about what they are being presented with in order to get a more complete idea of what is or is not going on. Coming to a personally satisfying conclusion quickly is, perhaps, a sign of closed-mindedness since such conclusions are often arrived at based upon pre-existing notions, beliefs and personal truths.
Now just because I ask RATIONAL questions when presented with what puport to be statements of ‘fact’ that does not mean I am dismissing the power and relevance of the personal experience. Personal experiences are just that ‘personal’ and as such are relevant, meaningful and emotionally charged. The subjective world we inhabit is a powerful illusion. In some ways it is as ‘powerful’ as the illusions created by what we think of as the ‘objective world’. (The Illusion of the Objective World ??? That’s a topic for another day !).
I see no conflict in asking ‘rational questions’ and still being able to accept the power and reality of the subjective, mystical experience but as I move between different worlds I am seeing more and more people who just ‘don’t get it’ – ie Rational Mysticism.
It’s not fence sitting – that seems to be the easiest way to dismiss it – it is a recognition of the interplay between mind, body and (for want of a better term) ‘spirit’.
It is a recognition of the illusions we create and co-create and the ‘lables’ we choose to give to our experiences.
Consider this:-
“Psychic is a much used term and one that immediately creates in the mind of the listener certain presuppositions. The word itself comes from the Greek word psychikos which means “of the soul” or “mental” and in common usage usually implies an ability in ‘extrasensory perception’”
We can use the word ‘psychic’ it is in the sense of attempting to create deeper understandings and meaning through the integration and use of all of the senses.
We can argue against the idea of ‘extra-sensory’ perception in favour of ‘total sensory’ perception. In this usage of the term the ‘psychic’ attempts to become open to all of the conscious and unconscious information available so as to communicate clearly and effectively.
Alan
Link to the Original Article on the 6 indications of being Psychic
25 percent of adult Brits have seen ghosts
A record one out of four adult British people have had a ghostly encounter – up from seven per cent in the 1950s. A study shows that largest number of ghostly goings-on experienced by up to 30 per cent of the population is being reported in Yorkshire and Humberside, the East Midlands and Wales.
Professor Richard Wiseman, who is a leading psychologist and paranormal investigator, found in his new study that more than 11 million people claim to have had an experience with a ghost…
In the 1950s, the figure was just seven per cent, rising to 14 per cent in the 1990s and 19 per cent in 2003, The Sun reports.
Prof Wiseman, from the University of Hertfordshire, said: “It’s a surprisingly high figure, and it’s interesting that the proportion of people who say they believe in ghosts has remained the same as it has been for many years, which is about a third.” He further said that another factor may be the decline of traditional religious beliefs.
Many of you will recall the four part TV special that Derren Brown did on UK TV last year – Derren Brown Investigates.
On the whole I thought the series was good and I did blog about each of the episodes when they aired.
In recent months, and with the cooperation of the mediums involved with Haunted Cornwall FM, I’ve been looking at the question of ‘accuracy’ and ‘relevance’ when it comes to psychic or mediumistic readings. I am grateful to the six individuals who have agreed to take part and respect their willingness to ‘play’ and ‘explore’.
Now whilst this particular ‘test’ is still in the data collation phase, I am in the process of writing up from existing notes the method and protocols used which will be part of the final ‘report’. In the process of checking some references I came across some articles related to Joe Power (the medium who was on the Derren Brown TV Show).
What I found interesting here are the claims and counter claims as to the “fairness” of the portrayal of Mr Power himself in the programme.
Now, before I take a more detailed look at the claims, it must be said that most of the folks I talked too about this particular show, including mediums and psychics, agreed that Mr Power did himself few favours. For me the post show claims of ‘fairness of test’ is a common theme in most (if not all cases) where psychic ability has been ‘tested’ and found lacking.
It seems to me that some of those folks in the past who have ‘played’ with ‘testing’ and ‘experimentation’ have agreed to the protocols and limtations of the ‘test’ before they did it and when things didn’t go the way they hoped, believed or planned go back on any agreement and look for ways to prove that the ‘test’ or ‘tester’ was at fault.
I guess these complaints would not be forthcoming if the test had validated their claims.
The nature of science and scientific method is, of course, to examine and challenge the methods used in any experiment in order to ensure that the findings are sound. But the post-test reviews by some of the psychics who ‘fail’ the ‘tests’ they agree to are more often than not based upon claims of deciet rather than any meaningful challenge to the methods used.
Let’s take the Joe Power case for example. Joe made an official complaint to Ofcom about Objective Productions, the producers of Derrens show. Thec complaint was about ‘unfair’ treatement, presentation of ‘material facts’ and editing of the programme (one assumes to make Mr Power ‘look bad’).
As the results of this complaint have now been made public, I feel I can blog about it with relative ‘safety’. (Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 7th February 2011).
So what was Mr Power’s opinion on the show?
The following is from Joes own blog.
Statement from Joe regarding Derren Brown – Investigates
You may have watched my recent appearance on “Derren Brown – Investigates” on Monday 10th May 2010. If you managed to catch it, you will have noted ….all was not as it seems as the well know sceptic, himself might say.
For example, the production company advertised for a list of readers to use in the documentary. Ultimately they therefore had a free reign as to who they chose for me to read for. I was not informed who I would be reading for, where I was going or when I was reading.
When I arrived at Vanda’s address I immediately informed the Director of the programme, Mr Heenan Bhatti, that my sister lived in the road. The Director’s enquired if I had read for Vanda at the address previously to which I responded I had not. It is disappointing that with creative editing the programme makers have attempted to imply that I gathered information about this lady (and others) through my sister. For the record, this is not true.
I was therefore reluctant to attend the address because I anticipated the programme makers were keen to use this against me and shatter my reputation.
The programme makers were not interested in documenting a fair and balanced portrayal of my act but merely attempted to destroy my reputation that I have built up over many years. With this in mind, I instructed solicitors to write to the programme makers putting them on notice that if any comments broadcast were defamatory, I would reserve my position to issue proceedings.
You will note from the letter dated 26th March 2009, clear confirmation that I informed Mr Bhatti I was aware of Vanda’s address. There was no mention of this in the programme.
Further evidence of my unfair portrayal was Claire Copper’s reading at the Hollyoaks’ studios. I had no recollection of ever seeing a Mini Cooper parked in the car park as insinuated by “Lee” Derren Brown’s Runner. Lee is/was also employed by Lime Pictures (makers of Hollyoaks). In any event, the car park was dark and no car pulled up next to me. I am aware the programme makers took the CCTV footage from the car park that night and have failed to provide any evidence to support its claim. It is their words against mine. I will leave it for you to decide who you believe.
In my opinion, I believed I would be making an informative and constructive debate into the life of a psychic. It soon became aware that this was not going to happen. I was aware Derren was a celebrity sceptic but did not for one minute believe the programme makers would undertake underhand tactics like changing clients names and their personal details to prohibit a true reading like they did with “Pam”. For those of you who watched the programme, you will note I exposed “this reading” as a set up very early on and was disappointed the programme makers had clearly decided to make a negative documentary about what I do. I did however felt pressured to continue. It is my belief that “Pam” also felt pressured to continue. It was interesting to note both “Pam” and Derren couldn’t remember if they had met earlier. Any reading was always going to be distorted with such variables.
I do not ask you to believe what I do is true. My gift provides a lot of people throughout the country with a certain amount of comfort and happiness. Like many other psychics and mediums throughout the country, you either believe us or you do not. I am not forcing you to believe me but the programme will have upset a lot of people who do.
It is disappointing that what you saw last night was not actually a realistic interpretation of the week in question and I merely wish for you to be fully informed of the actual facts to make you make your own mind up.
On Joe’s blog there is also a statement from his solicitor:-
Statement from Joe’s Solicitor
In my opinion, having watched the programme, it is disappointing to note Mr Brown and Objective Productions failed in parts to truly reflect the time they spent with Joe. Whilst Joe was aware he was taking part in a programme with the well-known sceptic Derren Brown, he did not expect the programme makers to so comprehensively alter the dynamics and boundaries of the clients he was reading for.
Affecting any variables in all testing is always going to affect the outcome. It was clear from the programme that Joe actually did very well but it is important to point out that despite numerous letters to and from Objective Productions it still chose to imply Joe was “fed” information from his sister, (despite him expressly making the Director of the programme aware of this fact) and that he engaged in “cold reading”.
I share Joe’s frustration that what could have been an open and informative debate on a fascinating subject area was sacrificed to make dramatic television.
Joe’s fan base speaks for itself and viewers can and will have made up their own mind up.
Joseph Walsh
Solicitor
Brabners Chaffe Street
OK, so there’s the complaint.
I think if you read it carefully you may come up with your own thoughts as to how solid (or not) Joes counter claims are.
The idea that people using ‘false’ names actually made his readings difficult or that such ‘deception’ or ‘under-handed’ techniques make the ‘test’ invalid is patently non-sense. Surely if you are testing clairvoyant abilities then:-
a) The ‘reader’ should not have knowledge of the people they are reading for
b) Experimental controls, which may include the inclusion of blinds and red herrings, could be part and parcel of the protocol for testing. Even a ‘name’ can give hints to an experienced ‘cold reader’ – think about it. Names have generational and sometimes social-class bias. (That’s why the test I am conducting replaces names with numbers).
c) Informing the ‘Director’ that his sister lived in the ‘same’ road as one of the volunteers Joe read for is one thing, admitting is was ‘next door’ (if I recall) is a bit different. Moreover during the reading itself that was filmed Joe could have commented upon the fact so ensuring that there could be no later claim of collusion.
The thing about the Mini is neither here nor there, as Joe says it could be a bit of a ‘tit’ for ‘tat’ arguement. But surely his behaviour at that series of Hollyoakes ‘readings’ was solely down to him. As I commented when I wrote about the show, his challenge to Derren to ‘have a go’ (which was accepted reluctantly) produced a sitiation where he (Derren) was getting as many ‘hits’ as Joe. Joe’s interruption about an ‘affair’ which caused some consternation actually displayed a lack of sensitivity and, for me, was an obvious attempt to ‘get some power’ over, or ‘focus off’ Derren’s peformance.
Joe says he does not ask people to ‘believe’ that his gift is true. Umm, well isn’t that exactly what he is asking?
As for the solictors letter which supports Joe’s feelimgs about the nature of the show – come on folks!
You’re invited to do a show with Derren Brown. You must know his standpoint on these issues, so to latter claim you were duped into believing it was something different is a bit thin.
I have been at the filming of one of Derrens specials, I was lucky to get an invite by Objective Productions, I have seen the contract that you have to fill in as a member of the audience at these events. Every angle is covered about the nature of the show and what you are consenting to be involved in. To accept that this standard practice would not be even more ‘water-tight’ for his more controversial shows is nieve and shows a lack of understanding of how the TV Production business works.
Ofcom ruled that there was no reason to support or uphold the complaint on any of the uses Joe and his legal team presented.
In summary:-
Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment made by Mr Joe Power.
Derren Brown investigated claims made by Mr Power, a psychic medium from Liverpool, that he was able to communicate with the dead. The programme included footage of Mr Power conducting two one-on-one readings (with Wanda and Roz) and a session with several actors from Hollyoaks.
Ofcom found that:
Mr Power was provided with sufficient information about the programme before participating in it.
Material facts concerning the Wanda, Hollyoaks and Roz readings were presented fairly.
Testimony given by Lee, Mr Brown?s driver, about the car that belonged to one of the Hollyoaks actors, and Mr Power?s written statement were edited fairly.
You can read the full report here on page 41.
You can visit Joes Blog Here.
Joes PR has cliamed his involvement in helping the police in several murder cases. Namely Shannon Matthews, Sarah Payne and Sally Anne Bowman.
This letter is interesting in this regard:-
“Dear Mrs Hope
Isn’t it about time Joe Power stopped claiming to have helped the police in the search for Sally Anne Bowman’s killer? I was disgusted to see that this barefaced lie STILL features in Mr Power’s publicity material, most recently in the Isle of Man Today newspaper.
Perhaps Mr Power hopes that people will have forgotten the farcical nature of his involvement – ie telling the Daily Mirror that Ms Bowman’s spirit had revealed to him the identity of her killer, a Stephan or Stephen White, aged between 24 and 26, who worked as a delivery driver. It’s a little difficult to understand how this hot tip from beyond the grave could have helped the police as year 36 year old chef Mark Dixie was recently found guilty of Ms Bowman’s murder.
I’m reminded of the fact that Mr Power also claimed to have assisted police in the Lyndsey Quy murder enquiry, but was obliged to remove this statement from his website when it was emphatically denied by Detective Superintendent Geoff Sloan of the Southport Police:
“I wish to state, categorically, that as Senior Investigating Officer on the Lyndsey Quy murder, I made a policy decision not to use psychics on the investigation. Joe Power has allegedly made claims that he assisted the enquiry but this is not the case.”
What exactly did Mr Power contribute to the search for Shannon Matthews and the murderer of Sarah Payne? Was it the kind of assistance you described after the Quy fiasco:
“Joe Power did how ever make a statement in the Southport Police station where he spoke with a women officer who gave Joe a receipt for the statement made.”
Does Mr Power have a receipt for the statements he gave to the police in the Matthews and Payne cases?
This was the text of a letter sent to Mrs Hope (the same Mrs Hope who put the complaint into Ofcom, the Mrs Hope who I believe his Joes manager).
Surely the reply to such a letter needed to be carefully thought out, offering answers to the concerns raised in order to protect her client.
So what was here response?
“Dear atkinson get a life my client stands by what is true.You must be a sad person do not email back” .
(reference to the above exchanges can be found here)
Eloquent, supportive an really saying a lot about the professionalism of those involved…. perhaps.
So there you go…
I do urge you to read about Joe on his website, that more than anything else should help convince you of his sincerity…
For me – well – the real question about mediumship is perhaps not about the objective reality of their claims (this of course is interesting and worthy of study); but about the ‘intent’ and ‘value’ of mediumistic readings for the people they are supporting. Making a living from your skills is one thing, but the psychic business at the level that folks like Joe Power work is about ‘bums on seats’, ‘turn over’ and is very very lucrative. Surely there are ethical considerations here….
Alan
I think that this is ‘for real’, i..e. that it is has been produced as a real ‘how to’ film.
In the words of a famous tennis player …
“You cannot be serious !”
I love the bit about ending the seance if ‘people get upset’ or ‘the medium appears to be out of control!”
Well there you have it, instant seance note that your “medium” needs to have “seance experience” or needs to be “psychic”….
I know the internet should be used with caution as a source for reliable information, but where is the whack-a-loon warning triangle?
“Warning you are entering the brain dead zone!”
In exploring the nature of what I am calling Rational Mysticism there often the problem of semantics. As has been said elsewhere the Rational Self is the pragmatic, the practical and deals with the definable and verifiable reality we share. The Msytical Self is the metaphorical, transpersonal which is bound tightly by pre-existing beliefs and metaphsyical constructs. Brining the two sides of ‘self’ together is not a ‘problem’, it simply requires the discipline to know which hat is being worn and what set of ‘labels’ is being used when in debate with others.
In conversation with a ‘psychic’, who we will call Jason for the purposes of this essay, it became obvious that there was a kind of ‘heresy’ in the world of the spiritual medium which Jason was promoting. For the sake of our discussion see what you think…
A Psychic Heresy as explained by Jason…
Jason’s heresy falls into two key areas – that of semantics (in terms of the labels we use) and metaphysics (ideas about reality, the material and spiritual worlds)..
Semantics – The words we use.
Let us just consider two of the words used to describe the work Jason is involved in….
PSYCHIC
In his words…
“Psychic is a much used term and one that immediately creates in the mind of the listener certain presuppositions. The word itself comes from the Greek word psychikos which means “of the soul” or “mental” and in common usage usually implies an ability in ‘extrasensory perception’”
Jason attempts to make it clear that when he uses the word ‘psychic’ it is in the sense of attempting to create deeper understandings and meaning through the integration and use of all of the senses. He would argue against the idea of ‘extra-sensory’ perception in favour of ‘total sensory’ perception. In this usage of the term the ‘psychic’ attempts to become open to all of the conscious and unconscious information available so as to communicate clearly and effectively.
MEDIUM
In Jason’s words…
“This is another example of a misused term. The word medium may refer to communication (the tool used to transmit or store information), education (the tools used to educate), measurement (the middle value in a range of variables), science (the material that is undergoing or enabling a process) and Mediumship.”
It was the rise of the Spiritualism in the 1800′s that produced a veritable cavalcade of ‘spirit mediums’. Clearly these people became the tool, or vehicle through which communication between the material and spiritual realms was made possible. All Spiritual Mediums today subscribe to a view of the universe which maintains that in some form the personal identities of individuals survives death. As we will see this leads to Jason’s second ‘heresy’ - that of the non-survival of the personality.
When pressed by traditional mediums as to his abilities Jason defers to the descriptions Clairsentience (the ability to have an impression or sensation about people, places and things) and Claircognizance (the ability to have a ‘knowing’ about a person, place or thing).
Jason’s Metaphysical Heresy
Whilst Jason is very happy to reflect upon the nature and the reality of both the seen (material) and unseen (spiritual) realms, he is less comfortable with some of the popularised views about them. To really explore Jason’s heretical views (in terms of the Spiritual and New Age movement) would take far too much space here.
“There is a generalised idea promoted amongst Spiritualists that the personality survives death. It is my contention that this is not the case. The spirit or soul, for want of a better term, does survive… the personality is an ego-driven construct and as such is of the material world. Souls or spirits return to the ‘source’ upon leaving the physical plane. They remain part of us as long as we remember them and their ‘essence’ can be described by sensitives and those we would call spirit mediums…
“Has it ever occurred to you to ask why the revelations from most spiritual mediums about your dear loved ones who have passed over are either about the nature of their passing; their personalities or their desire to tell you they are free? The first two categories of statements really stem from the mediums need to ensure the listener that they are ‘in touch’ with the ‘sitters’ loved ones. The last category of statement stems from the desire to let those left behind know that their beloved has passed safely into a higher place…
“This does not mean that the spiritual medium is a fraud – but simply that they are conveying messages from the spiritual plane in the language those still living in the material world can understand….
“If we were truly clear-seeing (clairvoyant) or clear-hearing (clairaudient) we would know that the language of spirit is not the language of the material world. We receive the messages and then translate them into words and ideas that are familiar. In doing so perhaps some of the meaning is lost.”
In Jason’s writings these ideas are explored and made far more clear. He maintains the idea that the medium through which messages from spirit are passed is not the most efficient of filters; their own ego, personality and beliefs shade and colour the original purity of these messages. That must be the case as they are still here on the material plane.
There will be many who will read these brief comments and immediately reject them because of their personal beliefs and values and that is ok. Jason would like to think that these ideas could promote discussion and further thought amongst colleagues, mystics, seers and psychics so that there can be further exploration and learning.
At the risk of getting into hot water here, I feel the urge to make a comment or two based on last nights Haunted Cornwall FM show which took as its theme Witchcraft.
It was an active show and the discussion was vibrant.
In the UK the Laws relating to Witchcraft were repealed in 1954 so from that time it was not ‘illegal’ to practice witchcraft.
The ‘religion’ Wicca, came to the ‘fore’ after the many and various writings of Gerald Gardner.
Now that’s not to say that prior to his writings in the 1950’s there was not a practice of witchcraft, but there was no real ‘organised’ or ‘written’ doctrine. Gardner really collected together pre-existing ideas, writings, folk-lore linking them to anthropological studies about ‘pagan’ practices.
The animist tradition to which witchcraft and modern Wicca owes much of its origin is similar to those of many pre-Christian celebrations and practices.
So whereas ‘witchcraft’ (or ‘the craft’) is about the practices which have pagan-shamanic-pre-Christian origins; Wicca is the systemised ‘religion’ or ‘group of practices’ which were collated and collected from the works of Crowley (The Wiccan Rede comes directly from Crowleys Book of the Law), Gerald Gardner (the Gardnerian “Tradition”), Alex Saunders (The Alexandrian “Tradition”) and subsequent popularisers of the ‘craft’. These would notably include Starhawk, Scott Cunningham, Raymond Buckland, Janet and Stewart Farrar, John Stewart, Caitlin Stewart, Oberon Zell, and Rae Beth.
In terms of modern Witches, there are I feel several different kinds..
There are those who follow a defined Wiccan Path – generally learning from others, within groups or circles and having at their heart an agreed creed, dogma or set of teachings.
There are those who work alone, generally called ‘Hedge’. Their form of the ‘craft’ is less structured and far more eclectic. They may or may not follow the specific teachings of one of the more current popularisers, and have an independent approach to their work.
Some of these (Wiccans and Solitary Witches) may well claim some traditional ancestry – they are born witches. Whilst this is often difficult if not impossible to verify, it does sometimes create a strange kind of tension between the differing practitioners. I have witnessed a terrible kind of elitism that comes from such a situation – the kind of elitism that is in point of fact in direct opposition to the ‘love all’ message most seem to promote. Seems group psychology and personal ego gets into all religious-spiritual mixes.
There are those who like to call themselves ‘witches’, adopt the fashion and wear the symbols but have little to do with the deeper connections and spiritual practices share by the previous groups.
One of the key differences between Wiccan and others who practice The Craft is, therefore, related solely to the ‘traditions’ adhered too and the value that is placed upon ‘agreed’ teachings. For anything to be called a ‘religion’ it does need an agreed body of teachings, practices, possibly internal structures, and a clearly defined metaphysical position..
In the UK “Real Witches” actually work to overcome the pre-existing Judaeo-Christian bias and prejudices wherein notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘black’ and ‘white’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are defined by the political affiliations between Church and State. The Wiccan Rede, as a modern mission statement, for that’s what it is, calls for personal responsibility and a sense of duty towards all living things. This is a desire that is lived from the inside-out.
This is a very emotional topic and I, for obvious reasons, will tread carefully in my own summing up.
As far as the Creed of Scientology goes I think I am in total accord. I may, in my later years PC aware mind like to see the emphasis from MAN dropped and the use the word HUMAN, picky I know but just sounds more inclusive. (Maybe PEOPLE would be even better).
However a CREED is a simple set of guidelines which should inspire BEHAVIOUR, and quite frankly there is a genuine lack of respectful behaviour of those on ‘both’ sides of this issue. Surely the idea of ‘FAIR GAME’ in terms of combating detractors and critics is in complete opposition to the creed of inalienable rights.
Now here is where I offer a little bit of personal information…
I few years ago, when I was living in London, I found myself at a loose end and simply roamed the streets looking for suitable distractions. It had been raining and I was less than impressed with my own indolence, lack of motivation and generally damp disposition.
Walking past one brightly lit store front I was stopped by an extremely pleasant, smartly dressed and confident young man who simply asked “Are you happy with your life?”
Now I’ve never been one for superficial conversations and his direct question appealed to my interest in meaningful conversation and debate. I was about to question what he meant by ‘happy’ when he asked if I’d be interested in completing a short questionnaire. It seemed like a great opportunity to get out of the rain and fill a few moments or two so I agreed.
I went into the store and sat a desk. I noticed several other people sat at desks either on their own filling in forms, or with another smartly dressed young person engaged in conversation. The whole thing felt like one of those ‘time share’ sales meetings, so I was on alert as it were.
I duly completed my questionnaire, recognising many of the kinds of questions that would appear and the run of the mill psychometric assessments, and awaited my results.
After a short while I was joined by another be-suited individual who, whilst gently waving papers around, gave the results of my ‘test’. It was interesting, and in fact started off by making generally positive statements about my personality and disposition. I was being flattered.
There was then a long pause. The voice of my confident dropped into a whisper and he leaned forward. I mirrored his body language ready to hear whatever he needed to share…
“There are some clear blocks and darknesses however….”
He then spent the next few moments on what felt like a character assassination. Whatever good feelings about myself he had inspired a few moments ago were dismissed by his sharp, incisive, ego destruction.
When he had finished he sat back on his chair and said…
“We have a programme to help people like you. People who are unfulfilled, under-achieving on their potential…. Have you heard of Dianetics?”
This was my introduction to Scientology.
Although I did attend the ‘suggested’ follow-up session and gladly accepted my free copy of L Ron Hubbards book, I knew at the moment I had first taken the questionnaire that ‘what was being sold’ was not for me.
If I had been at a low ebb, or if I had been ‘searching’ for something and if I was not somewhat versed in pyschometric testing and ‘cold reading’ (for that’s what so much of the consultation felt like), then perhaps I would have joined this august group and maybe would be doing far better in life than I currently am.
For me Scientology, like so many evangelical religions and spiritual groups, is in danger of preaching one thing and behaving in a totally different way. More importantly, and this is perhaps a key question, how can any group – Christian, Jane, Islamic, Scientologist – have a stated belief in personal choice, free will and human potential whilst engaging in restrictive practices?
In trying to get a picture of Scientology and assessing its status as a Religion, it so difficult get past the vitriolic, negative and abusive stereotypes, language and attitudes.
If I as a grass roots Scientologist believe that my faith is being twisted, my doctrine misquoted and my colleagues attacked then I would be defensive and perhaps aggressive to the mocking questions of others.
If I as a parent of a child who has become a scientologist and hence has been “cut off” from them and their family, it would be difficult for me to see the religion as anything other than evil and ‘cult like’
If I as an investigator in search of some balanced opinion become harassed, spied upon and taunted, it would be difficult for me to see anything positive in the behaviours of those I am questioning.
As I researched this topic there were times when I felt I was hearing the generic complaints, misinformation and prejudiced thinking that has plagued so many religions at one time or another. Chirstians need only look at their own history to see how the institution of the Church as failed to follow its own preachings.
The best I can do at the moment is to ask the question that Scientologists hate, as would any religion if the same question was directed at them…..is it a cult?
To answer that question, the topic on The Real Twilight Zone on the 18th January will be Cults and Cult Behaviour.
You might like to look at the Church of Scientology’s own website as a counter to the ideas expressed in Part 1 of this blog post.
It is heartening to note that this blog, and indeed Part 1 of this blog, is in effect supported by the Church of Scientology in that in promoting discussion and thought I am exercising my ‘inalienable rights’.
Phew – that means I avoid the ‘fair game’ tactics alluded too in the Panorama documentary.
The ARC Triangle
Affinity, Reality and Communication
This is Tom Cruise talking about being a Scientologist. If I’m honest I am not sure of the provenance of this interview. If it is a Church of Scientology internal video, it would explain the ‘jargon’. KSW, Orgs, PTSP?
Is Tom talking with an understanding of ARC?
I’m not really sure what he’s talking about specifically, but then he is a ‘clear’ and I am not.
This is obviously an video of an internal talk..
The Eight Dynamics of Scientology
Now apart from the Tom Cruise communication, which is perhaps only meaningful to Thetans, there seems to be nothing in the stated doctrines/teachings that cause any major concern.
The Real Twilight Zone
Scientology – Follow-Up
Part 1 of this series had a very quick comment, which in the spirit of discussion and positive debate is most welcomed.
As some of you may ‘miss’ the comment thread on the article, and in fairness to promote further consideration, I will post the link the commentator offered here as a clip.
I find it interesting that of all of the posts on this site over the months the one entitled Scientology Part 1 received, within a few short moments a comment. Would all of the topics on this site engage so immediately.
My only request for all who want to engage in debate. I may not publish comments that serve only to attack an individual rather than the argument they are putting forward. Ad Homenim Attacks are the worst kind of logical fallacy and halt any considered debate. The only value in publishing such personal attacks in any forum is to show those who use them up for their lack of intellectual integrity and ability.
So here then, is the Church of Scientology’s response to the Panorama programme. You can judge by its tone, factual content and response to questions raised by Panorama its value.