Bridging the Chasm

[Telos]

The following article was written by a former New Age author who was a spiritual leader and healer for nearly 30 years.

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.

[-lines-]

Just finished reading that, and I have to say that it was worth it. Being skeptical of the new age ideas allows me to filter out those ideas that seem a bit too much, like a person is trying too hard to explain things with that mentality or trying to find answers that match to it. I believe in some of these new age ideas, but it's as though I need to switch between one kind of thinking and the other to do it. It also simply explains the reasoning in thinking that skepticals and new agers have. The part that sounds funny to me is explaining the groups as two seperate things, with a large gap in the middle, which would seem to encourage to think of different thinkings as two sides, opposing each other, very rarely having the two ways of thinking occuring at the same time with the same person.

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.

[alexd]

Good article.

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

[-lines-]

Yeah, that sounds about right. It's not so black and white, and that includes the gap where people could be not just waffling, but attempting to believe 2 systems at once, or two systems seperate from each other and dealing with the two as completely seperate. Makes sense, I hope.

[Telos]

Hmm... I hadn't considered that it was worse than what I already thought.

Thank you MajorTom, lines, and alexd. A lot to think about in this thread.

[-lines-]

Hey, think on the bright side. The waffling and the fact that people are challenging what they were brought up to believe in is great. It shows that we're all attempting to think for ourselves.

"Always look on the bright side of life." - Some Monty Python movie

[Telos]

But is that really what is happening?

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?

[Frank]

Hi:

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

[-lines-]

Yup, me for one. I deal with them as seperate things and think of 'new age' things when the mood hits me. Makes it easier to think about other things I guess if I'm not pondering on about the kinds of thinking that's 'new age'. What you believe in is usually inherited by your parents beliefs (at a young age) and then you modify or change what you think is correct or the proper way of things. Suffice to say, I was originally not aware of things such as OBE's and the such, but learned or heard about them, and began to consider them as possiblilities.

[yothu]

Interesting reading. Thanks

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

[Tombo]

Build your world around experiences not around believes.

For me it is a simple as that.

[catmeow]

The problem is that we do have two camps, skeptics and believers, and both are guilty of misplaced method and over-zealous loyalty.

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

[mactombs]

I have to agree with Frank on this one.

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.

[Selski]

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

[Telos]

I think most of you are forgetting culture's role in our social acceptance and collective interpretation of experience.

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:

1a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

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.

(Everything from 6 down is rather superfluous, but I might as well err on the side of thoroughness)

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.

[mactombs]

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.

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.

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.

[Telos]

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.

Then you have a very narrow understanding of your own argument.

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.

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.

How can you flip-flop between cultures?

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.

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. :)

Valuing uniqueness is totally in tandem with convergence. It's the recognition and acceptance of diversity that allows us to connect.

Get out of the trees, Mr. Monkey. :P

[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.

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.

[mactombs]

Then you have a very narrow understanding of your own argument.

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.

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.

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.

[Telos]

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. ;)

And since I'm an American as well, I thought my particular statement was closer to self-deprecation.

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.

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.

[mactombs]

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.

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.

[Telos]

I meant "all planes of existence" as a metaphor, since "planes of existence" is tossed around rather liberally to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. I was trying to go for a poetic moment. :)

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

[catmeow]

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

[Telos]

Thank you, catmeow. I haven't expressed how much I value your viewpoint on such matters. (I really value it).

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?

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".

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?

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.

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?

[Frank]

Telos:

Yes, I remain very much a student and I'm learning new things all the time.

Yours,
Frank