One last thought: Tyger has mentioned a few times that it's best not to talk too much about some elements of the occult or supernatural or (pick your term) . . . Hansen touches directly on this and the idea of the taboo (lost I think on our culture) and gives some fascinating examples . . . including his own experiences . . . it's one of the things I've heard most frequently in exploring this field, everyone who has done some serious investigation seems to have experienced these effects.
There are different reasons for giving cautions and being cautious.
It's possible I mentioned I was being cautious about sharing too much because if one is hearing certain information without any experiences to inform the ideas, several possibilities are possible:
- the information becomes a source of fascination rather than knowledge, leading to potentially fanciful if not outright false interpretations of the material;
- the fascination leads to 'dabbling' before the person has done adequate personal preparation. The literature is rife with evidence of tragic consequences ensuing with premature precipitation of suprasensory capacities. I will give you one documented example in the occult literature from the 1920's.
A man and his wife were keen to explore the occult - its possible they had an interest in phenomena like contacting spirits and channeling. They were doing exercises, reading and associating with the relevant people in the occult field. The common caution is - focus on the purification, if capacities manifest, okay - but it is not advisable to seek out and force the manifestation of phenomena for the sake of phenomena (this is stressed again and again -
do not seek out phenomena for phenomena sake). The wife of this man decided to do the latter and wound up forcing manifestation. Unfortunately, instead of it being clairvoyance ('clear seeing') - it was clairaudience ('clear hearing') that got manifested. Having no ability to command her lower forces - not having sufficiently completed purification and achieved command - the manifestations ruled her rather than she them - meaning, she was victim of auditory 'hallucinations' (from a mainstream psychological perspective) - from what I understand this is something you do not want to have happen.
You do not want to open up this psychic capacity - it is near impossible to shut down. (In current times it appears there are drugs that can eliminate 'hearing voices'.) The end was tragic - she was driven mad by the 'voices' in her head and lived out the rest of her life in an asylum for the insane.
- in occult teaching it is stressed that knowledge entails responsibility. Though we are no longer living under the old dispensation, there remains an obligation upon the one with knowledge to dispense it responsibly. The consequences of being reckless with the information can result in tragedy, like in the story above. It is why the conveying of this information was always done in person and 'overseen'. However, we are not in that dispensation any longer. Things have changed - but the responsibility has not. My mumbling about the cautions and not speaking was my articulating my doubts concerning being so open on an internet chat site where I have no knowledge of the maturity or sophistication of the readers of my posts.
Steve, thank you so much for this substantive and detailed introduction to Hansen's book on the history of the 'trickster' concept. This subject seems to be an excellent opening for your personal examination of the paranormal in your blog, and I'm looking forward to reading everything you write in the blog as well as here, where I hope we'll see a discussion of what this concept signifies about human psychology and the meaning of demonstrated paranormal experience and abilities, which I think are two separate subjects. When you have time to add more, would you characterize Hansen's conclusions to his study? Thank you again for all you provide here.
I agree that they are two separate subjects (in a sense) though enmeshed, too. The same way that mineralogy and Geology can be considered two areas of study but they go hand-in-glove, as well.
Speaking in generalizations: Occultism has a model of the organization of the human being. A substantial - and exceedingly important - aspect of that knowledge concerns the psychology of the human being. The process of development one commences as one begins the 'path' is not easy and has many difficulties - as well as enormous rewards - and it includes psychological effects. That 'path' has been trod for millennia and there is therefore a considerable repository of knowledge about that 'path' and what one can expect as one progresses.
I hope to hear more from Tyger about the possible motivations of occult societies in keeping information private within their memberships. I would guess that those motivations have had something to do with threats to the members of those groups from people who opposed their interests and activities.
Prior to the big change from the 19th into the beginning of the 20th century, one entered occult groups by invitation. One was 'tapped' by a current member of a group and the responsibility taken on by the asker was significant. In saying this I would not be identifying the occult/esoteric groups - I am speaking generally. This much I am aware of: it is an area where fantastical ideas are abroad about all manner of groups and what they did or were involved with. It's an area I can't comment on, really - because my knowledge is limited.
However, you bring up a very pertinent point. There were German towns where right up into the 19th century Catholics had to register. The animosities that cleaved through communities and countries were not minor. Look at northern Ireland to get a sense of the passions that roiled through societies, through communities. The Catholic Church and the Pope - and the Inquisition - meant business. Wealth and power were the stakes - but it was a time when theological views were as seriously discussed as politics is today. The Jesuits are also an important player in it all. How power and influence was played in the 19th century and prior was very much through the network of who you knew, what groups backed you. Progressive ideas emerged from such groups - and power cabals across national boundaries. The French Revolution is steeped with this.
Then there is the matter of the pagan and gnostic streams - that the Church was hell-bent on stamping out. There are interesting reasons why the Church was putting constraints on 'pagan rites' - and 'atavistic' clairvoyance. Even the Protestants were rooting such practices out. Manifesting the clairvoyant has a consequence - it 'dims down' the intelligence. This is a whole topic.
'Taboos', ubiquitous in more primitive societies, suggest that the motivation is to maintain a distance between oneself and the unknown, especially where the unknown has been characterized as dangerous, frightening, overwhelming. Various practical reasons would exist, of course, for individuals or select groups to propagate such representations and characterizations of the 'unknown' and their own power to protect the larger social group from these unknown forces if they obeyed, paid tribute to, or otherwise cow-towed to those claiming protective power to control those forces.
Constance, I am not at all commenting on what you are saying above. Generally, though, there has been a 'divergence in the wood' as scholars who had no first hand experience of the suprasensory began to study the people who had a living experience of those realms. Anthropology was my first line of study at university - and I recall well the panoply of theories about tribal cultures and 'advanced' societies - particularly what I would call the mechanistic view of the 'function' of religion and the 'belief' in the spiritual.
The collective unconscious no doubt carries much of that history in an inchoate fashion but still capable of inspiring fear of the unknown in people of our time. That could account for a range of contemporary behaviors including the extreme resistance to psi expressed by both theists and athesists active in skeptical organizations, and indeed among some scientists.
I think the resistance is less based on fear as that there is an instinctive understanding - or a profound intuition more likely - that indulging in the 'clairvoyant' is a retrograde action. Indeed, occultism agrees with this. Putting 'atavistic clairvoyance' at a healthy arm's length is actually - in my estimation - a sound gesture.
The fact that the trickster figure in many different historical settings has often been seen as a jokester or clown suggests that people in those societies have found a way to manage their fears of the unknown by laughing at the liminal and paranormal.
This is what Anthropologists have surmised.
IIMO the Trickster is a symbol of the mind/emotions and how that geatalt undercuts us in our lived life.
