Nice to have you as a research assistant ex-l. Thanks for following up.
I looked at the link to Auerbach's show. Looks fun! He makes a living mocking the spiritualists. So what? If he was a proponent of actual spirit possessions etc, then this would make him as a hypocrite. But on the contrary ...
He thinks it is all based on preconceptions and beliefs. That he can create an entertaining show that emulates those phenomena - thereby showing how easy it is for "paranormal" events to appear as "real', and make a living beyond lectures and writing on the same themes - I don't see anything wrong with that. It's consistent (not sure of Madam Molotova - but he's not the booking agent, he' s another act on the bill). He probably gets his point across better that way than through books (or internet posts). I once saw a similar act, where the person did the kind of things a "clairvoyant" or "medium" might do, revealing secrets or identifiers about people, then he showed how he did it.
In fact, I can imagine you using that approach given the right mix of circumstances. You do it here sometimes. I can see it now, touring the clubs and pubs with a show - it'd need a catchy title maybe "Disembottled spirits and the Virgin" You'd, of course, have a Brahma Kumari who can go into trance and then invoke all the "low level spirits" to influence the audience, giving them an experience of "God", "Yogi in Bliss"and the Subtle Regions, and then ... the denouement! Hey folks, it ain't god, it ain't even you - it's these spirits, generously provided by our sponsors, makers of the worlds finest Scotch (place brand name here).
Is it because only people who live full time in the realms of books and full time study are worth listening to? Should we dismiss William Blake because he was just a printer? Socrates? - what would he know, a lowly stone mason. What do you do for a crust? Should we evaluate your ideas on that basis?
The BKs do that too. No matter who you are or what you actually say, the weight given to it is according to your "status". I prefer to see if the argument makes sense in it' s own right. Don't care if it comes from the dustman or the duke.
The proposition is: there is no evidence, in light of modern anthropology and other research, to show possessing spirits are "real" entities and not from the unconscious.
Just as God's role retreats and is redefined in the face of science, so too spiritualism (I know that this whole spirit concept is a major weapon in your arsenal. A re-evaluation, of what the "forces" at work actually are, does not diminish it at all if a psychological perspective is adopted. It can be described with either vocabulary).
I looked at the link to Auerbach's show. Looks fun! He makes a living mocking the spiritualists. So what? If he was a proponent of actual spirit possessions etc, then this would make him as a hypocrite. But on the contrary ...
He thinks it is all based on preconceptions and beliefs. That he can create an entertaining show that emulates those phenomena - thereby showing how easy it is for "paranormal" events to appear as "real', and make a living beyond lectures and writing on the same themes - I don't see anything wrong with that. It's consistent (not sure of Madam Molotova - but he's not the booking agent, he' s another act on the bill). He probably gets his point across better that way than through books (or internet posts). I once saw a similar act, where the person did the kind of things a "clairvoyant" or "medium" might do, revealing secrets or identifiers about people, then he showed how he did it.
In fact, I can imagine you using that approach given the right mix of circumstances. You do it here sometimes. I can see it now, touring the clubs and pubs with a show - it'd need a catchy title maybe "Disembottled spirits and the Virgin" You'd, of course, have a Brahma Kumari who can go into trance and then invoke all the "low level spirits" to influence the audience, giving them an experience of "God", "Yogi in Bliss"and the Subtle Regions, and then ... the denouement! Hey folks, it ain't god, it ain't even you - it's these spirits, generously provided by our sponsors, makers of the worlds finest Scotch (place brand name here).
Is it because only people who live full time in the realms of books and full time study are worth listening to? Should we dismiss William Blake because he was just a printer? Socrates? - what would he know, a lowly stone mason. What do you do for a crust? Should we evaluate your ideas on that basis?
The BKs do that too. No matter who you are or what you actually say, the weight given to it is according to your "status". I prefer to see if the argument makes sense in it' s own right. Don't care if it comes from the dustman or the duke.
The proposition is: there is no evidence, in light of modern anthropology and other research, to show possessing spirits are "real" entities and not from the unconscious.
Just as God's role retreats and is redefined in the face of science, so too spiritualism (I know that this whole spirit concept is a major weapon in your arsenal. A re-evaluation, of what the "forces" at work actually are, does not diminish it at all if a psychological perspective is adopted. It can be described with either vocabulary).