• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Mystical New Age Gibberish & Other Nonsense

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Randall

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
This is the place to post examples of mystical New Age gibberish and other similar nonsense. But let's first be clear about what we're talking about. To repeat part of a recent post here, the word "gibberish" is an entirely neutral word that describes a particular linguistic situation. For example calling the versions that are used purely for entertainment ( e.g. sci-fi technobabble ) isn't being the slightest bit derogatory. Even when someone innocently mistakes such gibberish for something that is real, and we say to them, "Oh that just gibberish, don't take it seriously", it's not being used in a derogatory manner. Rather it's meant to inform that person about the nature of what they are hearing.

Like a number of other words, it also might be used in a manner that is intended to be derogatory ( negatively critical ). However if that criticism is well founded, it also might be well deserved. The degree to which it is well deserved depends on whether or not the purveyor of the gibberish is claiming that the gibberish is true and the degree to which they can back their claims using critical thinking.Those who understand the contrast between gibberish and critical thinking know that identifying gibberish is not a purely subjective task, and that it is not being dismissive.

How About This - Ashayana Deane?


​
 
Indeed some of the findings in quantum mechanics have rocked our former naive world understanding to its core, its natural that some of these theories (albeit poorly comprehended or graphed from the culture of pop science) might bring about new ways for people to express their innermost thoughts of reality. I don't particularly see this as a bad thing, but surely if I were sitting in the same room with any of these people I might lightly goad them into bringing their incoherent thoughts to a better track--or otherwise examine critically their own reasonings and try to flesh out a better string of words to express what they are thinking.

The language of 21st century science certainly does add a great deal of "spice" to popular discourse, and perhaps some individuals have in mind a grand idea they wish to express in some way. Leading them to the right formulations might help, because underlying the mis-appropriated gibberish might be something they think is profound enough to share to others (and sometimes re-translates into something truly profound and meaningful). In many ways the language of science borrowed (a subset of what Heidegger calls "idle talk") and graphed into everyday discourse might express deepest intuitions for the wrong reasons. I like to think that people are waking up to a new understanding, if we are to understand or take anything back as a "moral" from this New Age "gibberish" it should be that real technological and cultural changes are epic in the 20th century, the likes of which has never been seen (at least according to some) in the history of the world. That human intuition will try (and fail) to catch up with its language is understandable--even through all the fits, stops, squeaks and pops, we'll see more and more human beings trying to forge a new language and ontology from the ashes of the former. New Ageism is not something that came out of a vacuum--its a very human reaction to a world-explosion of technologies and understanding that blasts ahead of our own brains ability to absorb. My great-great Aunt rode from Dallas to Ft-Worth in a horse drawn carriage. In her time there weren't many cars (to say the least) and humans had yet to complete the first powered flight. "Computers" were people (mostly women) who sat in offices laboring over arithmetic operations in many stages depending on the complexity of the algorithm (i.e. "task"). Even in 1930 only a small percentage of people in farms and rural towns had electricity (about 10%). Fast forward to now and we have planes that fly millions of people from one point of the world to another, across oceans and continents; people who work on networks of electronic computing systems; a vast grid of electric power in place; huge arsenals of weapons that can destroy most of the population in mere seconds; and cars that fly across vast networks of highways and roads made out of some impeccably smooth unbroken stone material (what would they have called it?), some of which have devices that will take your color image in your car in real time and present it to some indifferent observer far away. . .

Thinking about all of this I have to wonder what strains it adds to us as an organism that evolved for millions of years prior to 1900. Gibberish notwithstanding, if I took a time machine back to my great-great Aunt and told her of all of this while she was making her trip from Dallas to Ft-Worth, "gibberish" would have been the appropriate predicate to apply to my discourse.
 
Unfortunately, I don't think gibberish is a good word--it masks too much of what is truly a spectacular display of the sane and insane. This guy's a pathological liar who believes his own lies (regarding his origins). Regarding his "message" -- very similar to another figure such as Alan Watts (who in my opinion had a much more evolved message and never made any claims that his understanding came from some "divine source" or other otherwise etheric source). It's troubling to (I scanned through some of the transcripts and reading material from the site) read through this stuff--some of the "divine teachings" a mere copy-cat or caricature of more level-headed lecturers and "teachers" on the subject of practical life philosophy.

His ontology of the "soul" is a mere "container with emotions" -- a gross objectification of the once accepted by his adherents makes for easy pickings. For once all the emotions are drawn out of the subject, there's only a void ready to be filled. Indeed it resembles primal therapy mixed in with the cold hard steel of scientology "audit" (read: torture, interrogation) sessions by which a therapist picks at the undercurrent of emotions in an individual till they break apart. This is indeed a very powerful tool in the hands of a skilled psychopath who can further fortify the soup with all sorts of pseudo-religious jargon.

Primal emotions do indeed rest below the quiet calm veneer of the higher cognitive centers, so anyone who is skilled enough to release that "energy" (I hate using this word in this context) can further direct it to a focal point (the "message") and then embed the nonsense in as an underlying "cause."

The people interviewed in the segment appear to have PTSD--i.e. suffered some kind of great trauma that they cannot explain (entirely mental). Coupled with the realization that they have given up all semblance of rationality and delivered themselves to the field of emotions (none of them talked much -- they seemed to be the very "containers of emotion" that their leader pontificates about in his lectures.
Of course A.J. can simply say this is due to their sickness or issues with dealing with emotions. Adding the notion that their minds are containers to be filled by warring spirits and you have an aimless individual ready to receive further instructions or programming.

Reading through his materials, he might have had a chance if he had just ditched the bogus back-story. Correction: probably not...when they realized there wasn't anything original or new in the message.

A funny though occurred to me as I finished up this post:

What if someone introduced themselves as "Satan" to this guy? I mean to anyone else watching it would be just as plausible. And if you were persistent, "Jesus" would have to at least quiet his flock and say something like "well, we all know he's not Satan--I would remember him! This guy is just riddled with bad spirits." Then you could retort, "how do we know you aren't riddled with confused spirits?" Indeed, a good actor might convince the entire flock that he/she is Satan--when "Jesus" tried to exorcise you from the gathering, "Satan" could respond, "hey listen, I've decided we need to let bygones be bygones and bury the hatchet..." Then "Jesus" would be in a real pickle.
 
Last edited:
Michael Allen said:
What if someone introduced themselves as "Satan" to this guy? I mean to anyone else watching it would be just as plausible. And if you were persistent, "Jesus" would have to at least quiet his flock and say something like "well, we all know he's not Satan--I would remember him! This guy is just riddled with bad spirits." Then you could retort, "how do we know you aren't riddled with confused spirits?" Indeed, a good actor might convince the entire flock that he/she is Satan--when "Jesus" tried to exorcise you from the gathering, "Satan" could respond, "hey listen, I've decided we need to let bygones be bygones and bury the hatchet..." Then "Jesus" would be in a real pickle.
Click to expand...
Yes, Miller falls more into the "Other Nonsense" category more than the New Age gibberish category. I don't know if you meant that to be funny, but that would be totally hilarious! I'd love to see that :D !
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
This thread is too much fun ...
Click to expand...
That was a great find. She looks to be fairly normal, and she's able to express herself well, but it's mystical New Age gibberish at it's finest. To think that there are people around us who are actually in this headspace completely warps my brain, yet she probably thinks she's perfectly normal ( just like I also figure I'm normal, but some other people probably think I'm just as far gone as she is ). No wonder people don't like to step out of their comfort zones. No matter how well we or anyone else thinks we fit into society, the truth seems to be that the seemingly normal person you've known for the last ten years is in a headspace and worldview that would fry your circuits if you could suddenly immerse yourself in it.

I really like what @RenaissanceLady posted about it here: Can You Say Weltanschauung? | The Paracast Community Forums
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Yes, Miller falls more into the "Other Nonsense" category more than the New Age gibberish category. I don't know if you meant that to be funny, but that would be totally hilarious! I'd love to see that :D !
Click to expand...
I guess you could call it dry humor--actually I meant it as a real experiment. Perhaps Gene could invite the guy on the show...
 
I thought this was amusing...if anything it shows an attempt to understand the neuro-physics of sensory perception, but the analogy with the particle bubble chamber is a bit too much. Almost as if we'd rather talk about the physics of particles than the electro-chemical circuitry of the axons and synapses!


Overall I think the presentation is an attempt to explain something really profound, but the language being applied almost turns his presentation to "gibberish." Here's a perfect example of what I call "good gibberish" -- a person using the shared language of science in order to relay an idea about our sensory perception and how "mysticism" fails to be coherent with our current physical models. Indeed, as a reaction to the mystic who he's responding to, he almost invents his own quasi-mystical framework!
 
I think it all boils down to the unexplained terms (I don't like "undefined"--too rigid). Once you get to those terms you can splay them out on the table and pin the speaker down on each term and hope for the best. Unfortunately, on continuation of this practice, one finds that the speaker is using an interconnected web of terms each with string "explanations" or "definitions" in terms of the others--when this happens the realization that the discussion is in a loop becomes rather ominous.

For instance, trying to get someone to explain what they mean by the Astral plane might go like this

Alice: So, Bob, what do you mean by astral plane?
Bob: It is a plane of existence whereby the soul travels while dreaming, meditation or NDE
Alice: What is a "plane of existence?"
Bob: An area of reality where a person can dwell.
Alice: What is a "soul?"
Bob: A soul is a sentient being that experiences itself through the interaction with their world
Alice: What is the "world?"
Bob: A world is a plane of existence...of course!
Alice: You still haven't told me what a "plane of existence" is
Bob: Its a place where a soul lives...obviously!
Alice: What about the world you are living in now--is it another plane of existence?
Bob: Yes, and when you sleep, die or meditate, you travel from this plane of existence to the astral realm
Alice: How do you know you aren't already in the astral plane?
Bob: That's an interesting question, Alice...I suppose I have no way of knowing I would admit.
Alice: But what do you mean by "sentient being" or "experience?"
Bob: A sentient being is a being with consciousness.
Alice: What is being?
Bob: Being is an object in a particular plane of existence or reality.
Alice: Isn't the word "being" just another word for "object" and doesn't the term "existence" already entail the notion of an object in some reality?
Bob: Certainly not--I am a being and am certainly not an "object" that simply exists--I have consciousness...I have a soul
Alice: But I thought you said that you were a sentient being? Doesn't that also mean you are an "object?"
Bob: Ok what I meant was that I was not just a mere object sitting around doing nothing--I happen to have something that mere objects don't always possess--a soul.
Alice: Is the soul also a "being?" Does it also have its own plane of existence?
Bob: Certainly...and we could even call that plane of existence the astral plane--that's been taught for thousands of years by all of the renowned mystics of the world: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, etc.
Alice: So that means that when you meditate, your soul goes to the astral plane? I am confused...isn't the soul already in the astral plane?
Bob: The soul is that which is in the astral plane and in the physical world simultaneously--the two forms are synchronized by an energy fluctuation that harmonically balances the astral energies with the physical mundane world energies. So when you sleep, your body tunes itself like a radio and moves into the astral plane out of the physical world and leaves a shell behind.
Alice: [sighs] Ok...we've got more terms to discuss now.

[To Be Continued...]

Now it would be interesting to use a concept mapping tool like this one (its free) to diagram the relationships in all of the terms in my toy discussion above. What grows out is an interconnected web of ideas each referencing the other with strings and segment lines splayed out in a vast tree. One could then recursively hit each of the nodes and tree limbs in the questioning and try to flesh out the ontology of the mystic elocutionist; adding transformations or translations that would bring about a clearer picture to the interviewer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top