Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Tyger]

Meaning...If the magical effect has no primary source, or supply, then the magic dies quickly in the wind.

We are the source and often startled or embarrassed about the effects.

Another way of looking at it - where we place our attention, effects occur.

It is why psychic phenomena are not objective - the observer is creating the phenomena. The medium out if which the phenomena are created - that could be considered objective, as well as the mechanism of manifestation.

Nothing in this life comes with a warning label unless a conservative deemed it worrying that youth might get corrupted by it. Technology, an extension of ourselves, is the trickster in action. We feed it, fuel it, reinvent ourselves through it and know not what else it will deliver. We surrender to its magic.

Action without knowledge. Creation without understanding all the consequences - though is that wholly possible: to know all the consequences. We cannot, after all, totally predict people's responses, nor the avenue their creativity will take as a result of our action - unless we are a seer of considerable talent.

 

[Burnt State]

Another way of looking at it - where we place our attention, effects occur.

This is the song I sing daily.

It is why psychic phenomena are not objective - the observer is creating the phenomena. The medium out if which the phenomena are created - that could be considered objective, as well as the mechanism of manifestation.

One day, in my mind's obsession I conjure an image. I watch the manifestation of this image all around me throughout the day. Is my mind awakening to the pattern because this is what I requested and my consciousness shifts because I am participating in an act of will or because Mystic Santa is fulfilling my request? I suppose it doesn't matter how I feel about the origin, but that it's there is the day's magic quota fulfilled. It is enough.

Now is this just mindfulness at work, happily our minds swim in the rhythm of the psychic sea, accepting of each natural synchronicity as the common flow of life? Maybe we're really not paying enough attention to what we see into being?

Action without knowledge. Creation without understanding all the consequences - though is that wholly possible: to know all the consequences. We cannot, after all, totally predict people's responses, nor the avenue their creativity will take as a result of our action - unless we are a seer of considerable talent.

Or if we bring consciousness to each breath, each thought, each action, the consequences are what they will be. Acts of creation and destruction are equally alive. We are informed by our awareness, our attention to detail. We live in the moment of the breath and between the breath. Each crunch of snow for each footstep, each chime of ice in the trees, each is the moment transformed. Living magically is a choice. Discipline and willingness are all that is asked.

Of course practising is always much harder than preaching.

 

[Constance]

I have very limited knowledge of magick - I can recommend John Michael Greer as being a very clear writer on the subject. From Mystery Teachings of the Living Earth:
Mystery Teachings from the Living Earth: An Introduction to Spiritual Ecology: John Michael Greer: 9781578634897: Amazon.com: Books

"What is magic? Perhaps the most useful definition describes it as the art and science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will.

The tools of magic are useful because most of the factors that shape human awareness are not immediately accessible to the conscious mind; they operate at levels below the one where our ordinary thinking, feeling, and willing take place. The mystery schools have long known and taught that consciousness has a surface and a depth. The surface is accessible to each of us, but the depth is not. To cause lasting changes in consciousness that can have magical effects on one's own life and that of others, the depth must be reached, and to reach down past the surface, ordinary thinking and willing are not enough."

I know nothing about 'magic', and have never been interested enough in it to pursue it. To the extent that it's used to manipulate and trick people, I think it's worthless. I also have to admit to long having felt an aversion to, and avoided, the occult (as I vaguely understood what it was about). I suppose one needs a sound and reliable guide to that subject matter, and I think we're lucky to have one here -- Tyger, in whom I sense a deeply responsible, moral, and balanced teacher.

For someone like me, the word magic is, so far, as poorly defined as the word 'trickster'. These terms/concepts need definition, and it seems that many definitions exist which do not have a common core of meaning. So I'm perplexed by a lot of what's being written here. I want to find out first how Jung conceptualized the trickster and understand better how he thought subconscious archetypes developed in the first place. I read somewhere in passing that the trickster received less attention from Jung than the other archetypes but can't remember where.

Like any term or concept that becomes interesting to a wide variety of people, the 'trickster' seems to have been taken up by people in disciplines far afield from its origin in depth psychology. Yes, versions of the figure show up in all kinds of societies, but it seems to me that these representations of the 'trickster' are different enough to lead us to question whether they all represent the same 'thing'. And the fundamental question is 'what kind of thing is the trickster'? Does it exist in the human subconscious (individual and collective) or in nature itself? Can we understand it as one of many qualities or options available to consciousness but not necessarily determining the nature of consciousness? Indeed, given the inexhaustible manifestions of consciousness in our species history, art, social behavior, and spirituality, can we think that consciousness is 'determined' in any sense? Might the trickster, at bottom, merely represent the freedom of consciousness poised between various interpretations of reality (and all those possible interpretations, at any time and place, merely a limited list of the possible possibles in existence)?

I really like what I've read about the John Michael Greer book you linked, Steve, and I've just ordered a copy. It's described at amazon as "an introduction to the core teachings of the mysteries through the mirror of the natural world." I've long been in sympathy with his core view, also described at amazon: "Mystery Teachings from the Living Earth reveals one of the great secrets of the mysteries--that the laws of nature are also the laws of spirit." Also quoted at amazon, the core laws of the mystery traditions identified by Greer are these seven:

• the Law of Wholeness
• the Law of Flow
• the Law of Balance
• the Law of Limits
• the Law of Cause and Effect
• the Law of Planes
• the Law of Evolution

"Magic practices," I've noticed, have taken various forms, with a major distinction between White Magic and Black Magic. I gather that the latter form has attempted to operate outside of the natural boundaries recognized in the seven laws identified above. It certainly appears that 'science' and 'technology' have operated outside those boundaries in the age we're living in (nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy all life on the planet several times over; meddling with genetics at the level of attempting to produce new species of life, etc.). Some people seem to think that the 'trickster' is responsible for such developments. I think human stupidity and greed are the causes -- both of which have proliferated out of the lack of development and application of moral law that is incumbent on us in our given condition in nature -- as existential consciousnesses able to understand the conditions and needs of our species and others in the time we have on this planet.

 

[Constance]

Tyger, I really like your excerpt from Gurdjieff in your post above and will read more of him at the link you provided.

"In each new age, the previous age persists, and within the previous age impulses from the ages preceding it. The series may reach back a very long way, but at a certain point continuity with the past is lost. Our memory as a species, our sense of vision and of guiding purpose, is weak, and indeed, grows weaker with each decade. In the nineteenth century, the memory of the medieval world was present in a way that it is not today. In the twentieth century the memory of the Renaissance still persists in our habits and our way of life, but the memory of the classical world and of classicism has nearly faded.

"In the mid nineteenth century there were, in Asia Minor, strands of memory running back deep into the history of our family of civilisations, to Babylon and Chaldea. They were preserved over such vast spans of time because they were of value, and they were preserved by the work of school. George Gurdjieff connected with this thread, and with the knowledge he found, he opened up the fourth way."

In a humanly well-made world, to the extent that we could bring it about {and we could surely by now have made progress toward that goal}, the knowledge of the past and present would not lie moldering in unread books. Life would be arranged to be more like a permanent school where the means of understanding were available to everyone, easily accessible in every city and village and commune after the day's physical work was done.

addendum: because we can't understand ourselves without understanding our past, re-member-ing the life of our species.

 

[Constance]

This is the song I sing daily.


One day, in my mind's obsession I conjure an image. I watch the manifestation of this image all around me throughout the day. Is my mind awakening to the pattern because this is what I requested and my consciousness shifts because I am participating in an act of will or because Mystic Santa is fulfilling my request? I suppose it doesn't matter how I feel about the origin, but that it's there is the day's magic quota fulfilled. It is enough.

Now is this just mindfulness at work, happily our minds swim in the rhythm of the psychic sea, accepting of each natural synchronicity as the common flow of life? Maybe we're really not paying enough attention to what we see into being?

Or if we bring consciousness to each breath, each thought, each action, the consequences are what they will be. Acts of creation and destruction are equally alive. We are informed by our awareness, our attention to detail. We live in the moment of the breath and between the breath. Each crunch of snow for each footstep, each chime of ice in the trees, each is the moment transformed. Living magically is a choice. Discipline and willingness are all that is asked.

Of course practising is always much harder than preaching.

Burnt State, that's an interesting description of how you use your consciousness, with close focus and awareness moment by moment. It sounds like a lot of work to me. I apparently need a lot of downtime. I find myself losing track of myself in reading and writing, conversing with friends, watching an occasional movie, listening to music, and I find this moving into and out of self-awareness to be very comfortable. May I ask why you've decided to maintain continuous awareness in the moment?

 

[Constance]

A bit earlier you and Tyger had this exchange:

Burnt State said: ↑
"Meaning...If the magical effect has no primary source, or supply, then the magic dies quickly in the wind.

We are the source and often startled or embarrassed about the effects.
Another way of looking at it - where we place our attention, effects occur."

Tyger said:
"It is why psychic phenomena are not objective - the observer is creating the phenomena. The medium out if which the phenomena are created - that could be considered objective, as well as the mechanism of manifestation."

Hmm, the major paranormal experiences I've had have been given to me suddenly; I've merely been a receiver. In one case I asked for a sign and received it. No doubt innumerable humans have experienced the paranormal in this way. So it seems to me that such experiences originate elsewhere, as the result of someone else's intention.

 

[smcder]

I know nothing about 'magic', and have never been interested enough in it to pursue it. To the extent that it's used to manipulate and trick people, I think it's worthless. I also have to admit to long having felt an aversion to, and avoided, the occult (as I vaguely understood what it was about). I suppose one needs a sound and reliable guide to that subject matter, and I think we're lucky to have one here -- Tyger, in whom I sense a deeply responsible, moral, and balanced teacher.

For someone like me, the word magic is, so far, as poorly defined as the word 'trickster'. These terms/concepts need definition, and it seems that many definitions exist which do not have a common core of meaning. So I'm perplexed by a lot of what's being written here. I want to find out first how Jung conceptualized the trickster and understand better how he thought subconscious archetypes developed in the first place. I read somewhere in passing that the trickster received less attention from Jung than the other archetypes but can't remember where.

Like any term or concept that becomes interesting to a wide variety of people, the 'trickster' seems to have been taken up by people in disciplines far afield from its origin in depth psychology. Yes, versions of the figure show up in all kinds of societies, but it seems to me that these representations of the 'trickster' are different enough to lead us to question whether they all represent the same 'thing'. And the fundamental question is 'what kind of thing is the trickster'? Does it exist in the human subconscious (individual and collective) or in nature itself? Can we understand it as one of many qualities or options available to consciousness but not necessarily determining the nature of consciousness? Indeed, given the inexhaustible manifestions of consciousness in our species history, art, social behavior, and spirituality, can we think that consciousness is 'determined' in any sense? Might the trickster, at bottom, merely represent the freedom of consciousness poised between various interpretations of reality (and all those possible interpretations, at any time and place, merely a limited list of the possible possibles in existence)?

I really like what I've read about the John Michael Greer book you linked, Steve, and I've just ordered a copy. It's described at amazon as "an introduction to the core teachings of the mysteries through the mirror of the natural world." I've long been in sympathy with his core view, also described at amazon: "Mystery Teachings from the Living Earth reveals one of the great secrets of the mysteries--that the laws of nature are also the laws of spirit." Also quoted at amazon, the core laws of the mystery traditions identified by Greer are these seven:

• the Law of Wholeness
• the Law of Flow
• the Law of Balance
• the Law of Limits
• the Law of Cause and Effect
• the Law of Planes
• the Law of Evolution

"Magic practices," I've noticed, have taken various forms, with a major distinction between White Magic and Black Magic. I gather that the latter form has attempted to operate outside of the natural boundaries recognized in the seven laws identified above. It certainly appears that 'science' and 'technology' have operated outside those boundaries in the age we're living in (nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy all life on the planet several times over; meddling with genetics at the level of attempting to produce new species of life, etc.). Some people seem to think that the 'trickster' is responsible for such developments. I think human stupidity and greed are the causes -- both of which have proliferated out of the lack of development and application of moral law that is incumbent on us in our given condition in nature -- as existential consciousnesses able to understand the conditions and needs of our species and others in the time we have on this planet.

Try this for definition and practical use of magic in historical context:

The Archdruid Report: A Preparation for Philosophy

 

[smcder]

Five Best Mind Mapping Tools

I am trying FreeMind to see if it will help organize my blog - right now I'm doing a mind-map for this thread to learn how to use the software.

. . . re-reading this thread is very interesting . . . picking up a lot I didn't get the first time -

 

[Constance]

Try this for definition and practical use of magic in historical context:

The Archdruid Report: A Preparation for Philosophy

Thanks. I read the Archdruid's blog you linked. I remain puzzled about magic: why is it needed? Why are a million present-day earthlings practicing it (according to Greer)? This is undoubtedly a simple-minded question, but I really don't get what this is all about. Maybe I will when I read the Greer book.

 

[smcder]

Thanks. I read the Archdruid's blog you linked. I remain puzzled about magic: why is it needed? Why are a million present-day earthlings practicing it (according to Greer)? This is undoubtedly a simple-minded question, but I really don't get what this is all about. Maybe I will when I read the Greer book.

Greer says Magic is the art and science of changing consciousness in accordance with will - so what it's used for, Greer argues, is to yoke the intellect to the will, the mind to the heart -

Note the similarity to Yoga and other eastern unification practices involving both the mind and the body (later developments in Zen and Buddhism would focus more on the mind than the body - moving away from yoga's roots)

yoga
1820, from Hindi yoga, from Sanskrit yoga-s, literally "union, yoking" (with the Supreme Spirit), from PIE root *yeug- "to join" (see jugular).

Basically Greer says early philosophy had figured out something about reality and value (determining what should be done) but the third question was how to have the gumption to do it - the stoics said that if people studied logic they would know what to do - the problem, Greer says is that only people with stoic personalities found this workable (perhaps you have a stoic personality so this doesn't appear as a problem to you?) anyone else, Greer says - learned to "pursue irrational ends with a Stoic’s focused will and utter disregard for popular opinion."

Neoplatonism came along with the idea that the mind had irrational and rational parts to it and that ignoring the irrational or trying to subdue it intellectually just didn't work - (we see this in modern psychology / Jung's idea of the "shadow" - push it down and it pops up somewhere else).

Plato's analogy was a chariot , the driver was reason and the horses were the carnal appetites and social reactions or concerns - so, over time, Greer says what emerged as the way to train these horses to go where reason wanted them to go was magic.

Again, in Greer's words:

By Aristotle’s time, though, a third question had already begun to emerge. The tools of logic proved to be effective ways to figure out at least part of what is real and what matters, but the ancients, like a great many people before and since, quickly discovered that it’s one thing to understand logically what needs to be done and quite another thing to do it, or to motivate others to do it. The question that came to dominate the latter two-thirds of the history of classical philosophy, then, was "How can we live in accordance with what we know to be real?" Plato was ahead of his time here; some of his later work focused on this third question rather than the second, and from this part of his work, later philosophical movements headed off in their own ways.

. . .

The Stoics—. . . —argued that what kept people from living in accordance with reason was, on the one hand, misguided opinions about what was and wasn’t important, and on the other, simple lack of courage. Along the lines of some modern systems of thought, they insisted that if people studied logic and gained an accurate sense of their very modest place in the universe, they would be able to respond to life’s events in a sane and constructive manner, rather than being batted around at random by the forces of passion and prejudice.

It’s an appealing notion, and the best of the Stoics were impressive figures by any standard. The problem, though, was that Stoicism proved impossible to teach to anyone who didn’t already find its ideas and practices emotionally appealing. Anyone else trained in Stoicism simply ended up learning how to pursue irrational ends with a Stoic’s focused will and utter disregard for popular opinion.

. . .

Such obvious difficulties in the Stoic approach fed the growth of a different philosophical school, which eventually became the philosophical core of late classical culture: Neoplatonism, which took Plato’s tentative probings toward an answer to the third question and ran with them. Central to Neoplatonism was the idea that the human mind had irrational as well as rational dimensions, and that there had to be better options than ignoring or browbeating the irrational side of the self. In one of his dialogues, Plato had compared the whole self to a chariot (yoga - yoke) in which reason was the driver and two irrational parts, the biological appetites and the social reactions, were two very unruly horses.

The challenge that had to be solved, to the Neoplatonists, was how to train these horses so that they would pull the chariot the way the charioteer wanted to go. Several centuries of work went into finding the best ways to meet that challenge, and the toolkit that became central to Neoplatonism from the third century CE on—well, that’s where magic comes in.

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt State, that's an interesting description of how you use your consciousness, with close focus and awareness moment by moment. It sounds like a lot of work to me. I apparently need a lot of downtime. I find myself losing track of myself in reading and writing, conversing with friends, watching an occasional movie, listening to music, and I find this moving into and out of self-awareness to be very comfortable. May I ask why you've decided to maintain continuous awareness in the moment?

i wish i took time to meditate more to better consolidate my mindfulness. but i'm a lazy Buddhist and so i bring awareness to where it's needed like at work, while driving, shopping, parenting, with partner etc. but like most people a lot of things happen on autopilot. bringing awareness to everything though does not take a lot of work - it just takes a lot of patience and compassion with oneself, and as the Steiner quote says, way less time wasted on criticizing things, people, especially oneself. if we characterize our experiences we can join with them better and be more a part of things.

Hmm, the major paranormal experiences I've had have been given to me suddenly; I've merely been a receiver. In one case I asked for a sign and received it. No doubt innumerable humans have experienced the paranormal in this way. So it seems to me that such experiences originate elsewhere, as the result of someone else's intention.

another way of looking at what you are outlining is that there is a call and a response. in fact it could even be echo. the mind calls out, desires, and clouds speak up. it's quite common no?

 

[stephen haldane]

hello people...I have skim read this thread and would like to hear your opinions of Dr Richard Alan Millar as what I have listened to in the interviews he has done in the last year seem to cover some of the material you are discussing (a lot of it is above my head academically but I can grasp the core points)...what are your thoughts on his theory of the non local mind in the holographic universe???? RAM also says he is magician and a member of OTO and worked for navy intel and says he still does and has a handler(he calls him his wrangler!)

 

[smcder]

hello people...I have skim read this thread and would like to hear your opinions of Dr Richard Alan Millar as what I have listened to in the interviews he has done in the last year seem to cover some of the material you are discussing (a lot of it is above my head academically but I can grasp the core points)...what are your thoughts on his theory of the non local mind in the holographic universe???? RAM also says he is magician and a member of OTO and worked for navy intel and says he still does and has a handler(he calls him his wrangler!)

I'm not familiar with Dr. Richard Alan Millar (is it this Richard Alan Miller: Dr. Richard Alan Miller?) - do you mean that he is a stage magician and also a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?

 

[smcder]

Below are short quotes which once again sum up my initial suspicions regarding investigation into ESP and the study programs associated with it. It consistently turns out that these studies don't use targets that cannot be interpreted any other way than what they actually are and are evaluated by statistical interpretation. This isn't to say the statistical analysis isn't interesting, but it's also less than conclusive. When we have someone who can, for example, correctly identify a series of random symbols in their correct order that are in a remote location and never seen by anyone prior to the experiment, then we'll have something substantial to talk about. Until then it's too vague. Nevertheless, thanks go to @smcder for digging those papers up and posting them. They do provide food for thought even if they aren't conclusive.

Utts paper: "The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance."
Hyman's Report: "We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes."
Utts' reply to Hyman's report: "There are many observations in physics and in the social and medical sciences that can be observed, either statistically or deterministically, but which cannot be explained."
Response by May: "As a result of AIR's assessment, the CIA concluded that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory but that there was no case in which ESP had provided data that had ever been used to guide intelligence operations. This paper is a critical review of AIR's methodology and conclusions."

Note: The USAF sponsored statistical study of UFO reports by the Battelle Memorial Institute is another interesting example of how statistical analysis has been used to make an academically acceptable case. Some people interpret the results as sufficient evidence to believe UFOs are real. Others don't.

I agree (but I have only read a couple of studies) that it isn't conclusive but it seems to me science is being done and so these studies have to be responded to as any other piece of science.

I want to learn more about the statistical methods used - my father used meta-analysis extensively in his study of computer based education:

Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms (IMPAC) - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

He and I have discussed Margins of Reality (Jahn and Dunne's work from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratories: Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World: Robert G. Jahn, Brenda J. Dunne: 9781936033003: Amazon.com: Books) and so one question that occurs to me now would be whether he feels the studies on psi would be equivalent in methodological rigor and outcomes to the work he did - and more generally to compare the standards of criticism of psi experiments to those in other social sciences/education - the Trickster theory of Hansen, and he writes extensively on this, says that even if psi experiments compare favorably or exceed these standards see below (so that the criticisms leveled at psi research should also call into question a broad swath of published research in "conventional" fields but either do not or these fields are not looked at by skeptics of psi research) - in a manner to which you could say "what else do you want?" the criticism would continue because of the liminality of psi and the relationship of the Trickster to social structures.

More briefly, the question to be answered is does the Trickster theory explain why although it's good enough for published scientific research in conventional fields, it will never be good enough for psi research? Does it explain why skepticism is as liminal and persistent as that which it (seems) to oppose?

Addressed here (linked from Utts homepage):

Common criticisms about parapsychology: Criticism 1
Apparently successful experimental results are actually due to sloppy procedures, poorly trained researchers, methodological flaws, selective reporting, and statistics problems. There is therefore not a shred of scientific evidence for psi phenomena.

Published by Parapsychological Association on Friday, February 11, 2011
Response: These issues have been addressed in detail by meta-analytic reviews of the experimental literature . The results unambiguously demonstrate that successful experiments cannot be explained away by these criticisms. In fact, research by Harvard University specialists in scientific methods showed that the best experimental psi research today is not only conducted according to proper scientific standards, but usually adheres to more rigorous protocols than are found in contemporary research in both the social and physical sciences. In addition, over the years there have been a number of very effective rebuttals of criticisms of individual studies, and within the past decade, experimental procedures have been developed that address virtually all methodological criticisms, even the possibility of fraud and collusion, by including skeptics in the experimental procedures.

I would like to know more about the underlined research in the paragraph above.

 

[stephen haldane]

hi there... he is Dr.Richard Alan Miller ....the same one on your link....he has in his own words "come out the closet"....not a stage magician but ritualistic......Ordo Temlpli Orientis....in one of his interviews(veritas show,Project Camelot etc) which are all on youtube.... I think if my memory is correct he said that his grandfather "taught" Steiner if the one you quote was in OTO himself and is Swiss?....he worked for navy intel working on the paranormal....its just that his interviews are really interesting and as I said I am not academically adept but can grasp what he is talking about(JUST!)....and reading your thread you seem to know what your talking about and was wondering if you had any views?????.....his credentials seem to be genuine(nobody online disputing him!)....what I could make out is he is a proponent of magic(I know there are different spellings but I will stick to the common one!) being a higher form of physics (he is a physicist himself).....but the tales he tells are brilliant if true!!

 

[smcder]

Thanks. I read the Archdruid's blog you linked. I remain puzzled about magic: why is it needed? Why are a million present-day earthlings practicing it (according to Greer)? This is undoubtedly a simple-minded question, but I really don't get what this is all about. Maybe I will when I read the Greer book.

Did I answer your question, Constance?

After sleeping on it - I think what I would say very briefly is that magic is a way of working with the irrational aspects of the mind to bring about intentional and permanent changes in consciousness -the ceremony may seem silly to our current mindset but the irrational mind responds to it. (a very interesting thing in itself).

One of Greer's favorite examples is advertising as thaumaturgy (as opposed to theurgy) or modern day "black magic". How else, except for a change in consciousness, could people be induced to drink brown (black?) fizzy water?

 

[stephen haldane]

just googled Steiner.....Austrian not Swiss but the same guy!

 

[smcder]

Steve, can you clarify what Hansen thinks the 'trickster' is? Whether it is something that possesses agency? Where it originates, etc. Thanks.

I re-listened to the AfterLife FM interview with Hansen:

Afterlife FM - George P. Hansen : Afterlife FM : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

and at 15:25 into the interview he responds to this question from Michael Prescott about the "ontological status" of the trickster:

Prescott:

"How real is the trickster? Are we supposed to think of the trickster as a metaphor or are we supposed to think of it as an actual entity or force in the universe?"

Hansen:

". . . you should think about it both ways, the trickster cannot easily be categorized, in fact the trickster is known to subvert categories and to blur boundaries, that's its nature. Its nature, especially in our western world view, is very difficult to grasp. Certainly its a metaphor but the world works in certain archetypal ways, there are these larger patterns - the trickster archetype,the constellation of characteristics of the trickster tend to operate together and manifest together. So yes its metaphor but yes the world, the universe is built so these characteristics tend to cluster together and you can say: "there is trickster " it can be a very abstract way of thinking and it can be very concrete"

Hansen addresses some criticism from Radin about his theory and also critiques Radin's approach - saying why the Trickster theory casts doubt on ever being able to prove psi in the laboratory, scientifically . . . very relevant to this thread. I will try to transcribe some of this discussion . . . will also try to see if there is an interview with Hansen and Radin together.

 

[smcder]

I suspect that although it may seem science is being done, there will still be those who would dispute that it is applicable. For example in ufology, when an astronomer calculates that Venus was in the same location as an object in a UFO report, "science is being done", but does it mean that the object reported was a UFO ( alien craft )? No. Does it mean that that a book that includes that analysis is a scientifically valid analysis of the phenomenon? No. When there is criticism of the methods used that suggest that the experiments don't measure up to accepted scientific standards, is it valid science? Probably not.

When the scientific method cannot be applied directly to the subject matter ( as is the case with Ψ research ) is it science? I doubt the answer would be unanimous on that. All in all, Ψ research is a fringe topic at best. All that being said, at least the examples you gave have attempted to use some standards and controls, so the information is still IMO better than mere anecdotal evidence. As @Constance mentioned someplace back there, something seems to be going on that is beyond mere coincidence, and personally, I do believe that Ψ phenomena exist. I believe it to the same limited extent that I believe alien visitation is a reality.

So for me, the lack of definitive scientifically valid material or experimental evidence isn't relevant to whether or not Ψ phenomena is real. The question that is more important to me is what is the causal mechanism? Is it purely a byproduct of brain function? Or is there some external influence? I would suggest that if the phenomena were innate, then we'd have far more definitive evidence by now. But instead, it's intermittent and elusive, leaving us to draw conclusions based on assumptions. It's as if whatever the causal factor is, it intentionally avoids situations where it can be tested without ambiguity.

In some cases I think the reluctance of psychics to be tested is purely because they don't want to be exposed as frauds. In other cases perhaps it's the fear of failure and the subsequent shattering of the psychic's belief system and self-image. But what about the seemingly innocent cases, e.g. the connection that some parents seem to have with their children, or the connection that long time lovers have? Is "radar love" really just a myth? Is that feeling we get when we somehow just know we need to make that call because something is wrong simply the result of coincidence, familiarity, and subconscious pattern recognition? I don't know for sure.

So for me, the lack of definitive scientifically valid material or experimental evidence isn't relevant to whether or not Ψ phenomena is real. The question that is more important to me is what is the causal mechanism? Is it purely a byproduct of brain function? Or is there some external influence? I would suggest that if the phenomena were innate, then we'd have far more definitive evidence by now. But instead, it's intermittent and elusive, leaving us to draw conclusions based on assumptions. It's as if whatever the causal factor is, it intentionally avoids situations where it can be tested without ambiguity.

Hansen would say "there is Trickster!". If you have time, have a listen to the AfterLife FM interview with Hansen:

Afterlife FM - George P. Hansen : Afterlife FM : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

he goes into some detail in critique of this research approach to psi by Dean Radin, I'll try to transcribe some of it if I have time. Radin makes some very interesting points too in critique of the Trickster theory.

In some cases I think the reluctance of psychics to be tested is purely because they don't want to be exposed as frauds. In other cases perhaps it's the fear of failure and the subsequent shattering of the psychic's belief system and self-image.

Yes, the Trickster book also discusses this extensively - fraud and deception - he feels they co-occur with genuine phenomena. Some of these cases are very much like athletes or performers who have tremendous pressure to always be "on" - so if you go up to Robin Williams and say make-up me laugh and he's tired and not in the mood and doesn't, that's not proof that Williams isn't a funny man. So Hansen documents that genuine psychics sometimes resorted to deception when they were off their game or under extra scrutiny or didn't want to make the effort to produce genuine phenomena.

Michael Prescott's blog has a recent entry here:

Michael Prescott's Blog: "I double-dog dare ya!"

that touches on all of this very closely. It's very critical of Radni and JREF and I don't want to get bogged down with Randi (who may very well be the Trickster!) rather the point is that the events are predicted by Hansen's theory.

Further down in the comments is this piece that is relevant to the studies we are discussing:

RK,

Fair enough!

One other thing that skeptics do, however, is never accept statistical justification for anything.

1/1,000 chance and he gets it? Well, he just got lucky that one time! It's bound to happen now and then. After all, it's not like 1 in a trillion or something.

Oh, but we've got a *bunch* of guys who have done that?

Oh have you, really?

Yeah, look at this meta-analysis! There's only a 1 in a zillion chance that this was due to chance!

[Per Michael's observation in the last post] Oh, but that meta-analysis has been DEBUNKED! Didn't you know Prof. Aldritch of Melbourne U scattered that to the four winds?

Oh no he didn't, in fact... [arcane arguments about complicated statistics follow that laypeople can't possibly follow].

You really can't win with these people. They will never, EVER admit that anything on their proscribed list of phenomena has been proved true. It's going to be fraud or error forever as far as they are concerned.

Posted by: Matt Rouge | December 16, 2013 at 05:26 PM

 

[smcder]

Sure. That makes sense. I think @Christopher O'Brien would also agree that the above is one way the Trickster manifests itself.

OK. Thanks for that. I will.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The assumption is that it's the individual who holds some special ability. However because we don't actually know the causal mechanism, it may be the case that it's something external that leads the individual and the observers to assume that it's the individual who is the cause.

James Randi always gets flack from the psychics. While there are some hoops to jump through for the Million Dollar Challenge, every example I've seen winds up with the claimant failing to prove their powers. The rest opt-out giving some kind of lame excuse that is no better than a cop-out. When it comes to UFOs and the JREF, I don't mince words. I readily admit up-front and center that to my knowledge, there is no verifiable valid material scientific evidence available to us at this time that is sufficient to prove UFOs ( alien craft ) exist. At the same time, I also say that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to believe UFOs exist based on other evidence and reasoning. I think the same thing can be said for Ψ phenomena, but not to the same degree of certainty.

Based on my experience with a number of so-called skeptics over on the JREF forum, that attitude probably exists with respect to Ψ phenomena the same as it does with the UFO phenomenon. It is a flawed position because absence of sufficient evidence for the affirmative isn't sufficient evidence to conclude the negative. Unless the claim is completely facetious or utterly nonsensical, the most reasonable position to take is to reserve judgement pending sufficient evidence for or against a claim. Assuming error or fraud without evidence of error or fraud is prejudicial, and therefore more in the realm of denial than skepticism.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The assumption is that it's the individual who holds some special ability. However because we don't actually know the causal mechanism, it may be the case that it's something external that leads the individual and the observers to assume that it's the individual who is the cause.

Best to read Hansen's book and documentation of these cases - the point is how his Trickster theory predicts that fraud/genuine psychic phenomena should often be seen together in (or around) the same person . . .

James Randi always gets flack from the psychics. While there are some hoops to jump through for the Million Dollar Challenge, every example I've seen winds up with the claimant failing to prove their powers. The rest opt-out giving some kind of lame excuse that is no better than a cop-out. When it comes to UFOs and the JREF, I don't mince words. I readily admit up-front and center that to my knowledge, there is no verifiable valid material scientific evidence available to us at this time that is sufficient to prove UFOs ( alien craft ) exist. At the same time, I also say that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to believe UFOs exist based on other evidence and reasoning. I think the same thing can be said for Ψ phenomena, but not to the same degree of certainty.

I remain (small s) skeptical of Randi for several reasons. For his part, Hansen gives Randi his due but feels there are more capable (and less controversial) critics, such as Ray Hyman.

Based on my experience with a number of so-called skeptics over on the JREF forum, that attitude probably exists with respect to Ψ phenomena the same as it does with the UFO phenomenon. It is a flawed position because absence of sufficient evidence for the affirmative isn't sufficient evidence to conclude the negative. Unless the claim is completely facetious or utterly nonsensical, the most reasonable position to take is to reserve judgement pending sufficient evidence for or against a claim. Assuming error or fraud without evidence of error or fraud is prejudicial, and therefore more in the realm of denial than skepticism.

You've seen the S/s -keptic thing before I'm sure . . . Hansen has some good thoughts on this, in terms of the liminality of persons in the "skeptic movement" - of course the Trickster can show up on this side of the issue just as easily. I'll try to find the section, but what I remember is that he notes mainstream or institutional science puts as much distance between itself and the Skeptic as it does the psi researcher.