Psychic Delusions? Sylvia Browne, Shawn Hornbeck and James Randi

I've read books like Of Water and the Spirit, The Autobiography of a Yogi, and Dipa Ma: The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master for instance. There are several recountings of siddhis, or seemingly 'supernatural' powers in there. However that is not the primary message of the books. Siddhis are nothing particularly extraordinary when every blooming  and non-blooming thing is ordinarily exquisite.

My main teacher, Adyashanti says that every moment is fresh and unconditioned…until we believe otherwise. That statement if fully grasped (ha, it's more like fully surrendered) allows for many seemingly psychic powers. But they're not a big deal. It's as equally special to eat a warm buttered piece of toast quietly in the garden as it is to have a 'conversation' with a zucchini or feel your own face as a friend brushes their palm across it. The idea of reality that we've constructed in our brain can start to disassemble when our sense of a separate self entity does.

“Reality's merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” - Einstein

I don't have anything to say per se regarding Sylvia Browne, Masuro Emoto, Yuri Geller, et al.  My only issue around celebrity is that it is easy to assume that these people are somehow special and have access to something exclusive. I have friends that would rather pay a $100 for a psychic reading than just fess up to what they know they know.

A risk I've observed on my own path is to be swayed by these mystical experiences, the peak states, the highs, and get drunk on the lighthearted bliss, the euphoria of walking in grace and think it's about you and you've arrived and you have something and you are the messiah. It's not an experience, or a state - those are byproducts - and everyone 'has' it, or is it. (Inquiry: What, or whom, is aware of the experience, experiencer, experiencing?)

Jordan writes quite profoundly and beautifully in an Enlightenment.com forum regarding special 'powers', or siddhis, that may spontaneously be available with an allowance of Consciousness to pervade the 'me':

along the path siddhis come and go … they indeed can be traps of ego along the way… can put one on a big messiah trip… others may be helped to reach realization without the need to perform siddhis…   many times yes mystical things happen, that is undeniable…

but it is usually not a consciously projected happening… what is needed to occur will occur… the universe works in harmony between a Guru and seeker when there is a heart connection… Grace happens ..

liberation is the greatest gift to mankind … to be able to Know the Extraordinary nature of Ordinary life where suffering and bondages have fallen away.. it is like going from marly's ghost wearing endless chains - to being a free flying bird through the glory of the Eternal Now…. what can be a better siddhi than that ? speaking from that silence and stilled heart - [direct] transmission can and does occur…. it moves the world…. although it does nothing of itself… this is the great magic …. this is what remains…. what IS….

excellent post! yeah, it's sad to see mainstream “psychics” getting kicked-butt by the Amazing Randi. i think they deserve it. especially if they make BIG claims about their so-called “powers.”

as for your questions. here are my take:

1) What is the difference between transformational spiritual practice and superstitious belief in magical powers and psychics?

transformational practice transcends and includes the ego. supertitious beliefs in magical powers surrenders the ego in a not-so healthy way. with stress on the “supertitious”. i think it's possible to approach “magical” powers and psychics with a good does of critical thinking.

2) Why is the confusion between these things in spiritual circles a problem?

because it distracts people from a more authentic path of transformation.

now my question to you is: do you believe in the existence of psychic phenomena? why or why not?

in the meantime, check out this Manifesto for Psychic Liberation by Jeffrey Mishlove. also his criticisms of the not-so Amazing Randi.

~C

oh those people were asking for it! i think Randi is doing a service in exposing the charlatans. but there is something in me, call it a gut feel, which accepts that psychic phenomena is real.

here's a short excerpt from the first chapter of Dean Radin's Conscious Universe:

“The reality of psychic phenomena is now no longer based solely upon faith, or wishful thinking, or absorbing anecdotes. It is not even based upon the results of a few scientific experiments. Instead, we know that these phenomena exist because of new ways of evaluating massive amounts of scientific evidence collected over a century by scores of researchers.”

even Ken Wilber couldn't help but “believe” in it :)

“I believe that the existence of some types of psychic phenomena is quite likely, and various meta-analyses of legitimate psychic research have concluded that something real is afoot. I have discussed this in the book Eye to Eye and won't repeat my observations here. I would simply like to emphasize that, once it is realized that the sensorimotor worldspace is merely one of at least ten worldspaces, we are released from the insanity of trying to account for all phenomena on the basis of empirical occasions alone. At the same time, precisely because the sensorimotor worldspace is the anchor of the worldview of scientific materialism, as soon as some sort of proof of non-sensorimotor occasions (such as psi) is found, it can be excitedly blown all out of proportion. Psi events indeed cannot be unequivocally located in the sensorimotor worldspace, but then neither can logic, mathematics, poetry, history, meaning, value, or morals, and so what? None of the intentional and Left Hand dimensions of consciousness follow the physical rules of simple location, and we don't need psi events to tell us that.”

but i don't need Ken to spell this out for me. it's natural to accept these things in the culture i grew up in. although admittedly, there's a lot of supertitious garbage that comes with it.

and here's a good criticism of the Amazing Randi. and even Dawkins is worried about the 1$M prize :)

you decide what to believe.

~C

I guess I didn't answer directly…

1) What is the difference between transformational spiritual practice and superstitious belief in magical powers and psychics?

True transformational spiritual practice holds nothing to be too sacred to be observed clearly and without distortions about what we desired Reality to be. We want to take the Red Pill, as Neo in The Matrix says, and see whatever is true and go wherever it may take us. It's all fair game for inquiry. The same ruthless inquiry  – and I'm not being intentionally provocative (heck, okay the Kali in me comes out)  – goes for questioning and wondering sincerely about magical thinking and rational thinking, btw. No thinking and no thing is immune from the light of Awareness.

(Rational thinking is all too often usurped for the illusory self's purposes of preserving a belief in its existence.)

“Contemplate this: there is no such thing as a true belief.” - Adyashanti

2) Why is the confusion between these things in spiritual circles a problem?

Superstitious belief usually takes power to be external. That's what I meant when I said I had friends that preferred to go to a psychic rather than navigate their way themselves. That would involve possibly entertaining a far more threatening path in trusting themselves - and that might entail finding out within and without what they take to be 'themself', they are a part of an ineffable and infinite wisdom.

My question: Why does 'proof' matter? Does anyone 'believe' anything they witness on TV and take it on? Does anyone 'believe' anything they read in a book and take it on? At best, those things just place an inkling of curiousity in a person's mind. Maybe they go from having a statement: THIS IS WAY WORLD WORKS to HMMM, MAYBE I DON'T KNOW and living in the I don't know is, well, this is where words elude me and the silence beckons.

1. Transformative spiritual practices don't need to be defended.

2. Is it a problem? I don't think it's a problem.

;)

Oh, I'm sorry if I came off as callous. I am. I didn't mean to provoke. But why are you pointing your finder at superstition? At myth?

Why not blame the fragmented, “rational” culture that would allow a boy to be so easily abducted?

Why not point your finger at the environment that's brought about the triggering of increased cases of bipolar disorder in today's society? Or a culture with such a incohate and uncomfortable understanding of relationship that its leads to people seeking solace in sex with strangers?

Why not blame our society's massive failings when it comes to the humane care of the “mentally ill”?

Why not blame the animal experimentation that unleashed HIV among humans? Why not fault the childhood or personal conditions that led to the woman feeling the need to seek validation in a cult?

I'm not a leader or guide; I seek only to take responsibility for myself. And I'd like to trust that people can make their own decisions about what they want to believe … I'm certainly not going to decree that for them. I don't know. I'm truly sorry for all that you've experienced and truly sorrowful that your brushes with the prerational have been so unfortunate, but I also am not sure that your blame is in the right place.

I don't know. Much love, Julian. I didn't mean to hit such a nerve.

I'm in training. I'm not a therapist. There's a difference. And even so, I'm not sure I'd present myself as a leader or guide. But that's comes down to, more, my personal understanding of the role of a therapist.

Anyway.

I definitely think there's a difference between pre and trans. And I think there's a difference between magical thinking and inquiry-based spirituality. I also think both have their place. And my inclination is that the reason these tragedies keep occurring is not because people are uneducated or irrational, but because there is no healthy place for myth or magic in our culture. It's not honored, and as a result, people are psychologically desperate to get that deep-seated need met. Until they do, all the inquiry-based spirituality in the world isn't going to help; they'll just fill that empty, mythological hole with something else.

Of course, I could be wrong about this; perhaps you're right to expose and condemn. I just am not really sure whether you'll be convincing anyone, say, who believes in The Secret, that your view is correct. After all, from their point of view, you're just creating your own reality – or you're just a manifestation of theirs – and given this, I don't really see how rational debate is going to further the cause you've so heroically taken up …

Julian,

“i find little to disagree with in the wilber quote - though it is 10 years old and i wonder what his current position might be given wilber 5….”

oh, he even expanded on it. i can see skeptics laughing their asses off on Ken's Theory of Subtle Energies. what do you think would happen if Randi would read that?

“the radin quote says basically nothing and would require some pretty strong context and evidential reference to be able to grasp the claim it is reaching for…”

i read the whole book. so i understand what Radin is talking about. most of the evidence is via meta-analysis. look it up. that's where Wilber based his statement which i quoted.

“dawkins is concerned for his buddy randi's $1 M because there may of course be abilities that we have yet to understand that are provable, fair point. - as yet though - no proof.”

exactly. i didn't implied anything different :)

“as of yet of course there is zero evidence to suggest we even need to imagine future interpretations of the paranormal…”

you're displaying your ignorance on the subject matter by that quote. and by this statement you are disregarding the hundreds or even thousands of honest researchers who made scientific studies on this subject. go check out Radin's book for starters. you sound like you already bought Randi's skepticism hook line and sinker :) if skepticism is your worldview on this topic so be it.

“i sense in all of your writing on this matter a tendency to err on the side of believing without proof that certian extraordinary things might be real - and you do this with a kind of condescension to the “arrogance” of people like dawkins and randi that seems to be based in nothing more than your belief - no?”

i believe in a lot of things without proof. but that doesn't mean i'm not capable of critical thinking. that's why i read Randi and Dawkins. but i don't buy their reductionism, hook line and sinker.

“do you think gerard senehi might be the one that turns out to have actual paranormal abilities? i would be prepared to lay money down that he goes the way of all the others when put under testable non-cheatable paramaters…”

as far as i know Senehi never claim psychic or paranormal powers. he calls himself a mentalist. so betting on him in the first place is a foolish proposition. but if he claims he has psychic powers, the burden is now on him.

~C

“i don't need to prove to you that i am typing from my office in l.a. right now.”

okay, i'm going out on a limb here as my responsiblity as a “leader, guide” (…whatever)

no, you don't need to prove it to me, but have you proved it to yourself…have you ever done the Ramana Maharsi inspired (well, it's a long line since him that advocate this inquiry): Who Am I? What Am I? all the way…

maybe you BELIEVE you are a Julian typing from an office in l.a. right now

not for me to prove or disprove, it's all yours

“in the meantime, given your extensive research - can you link us to one or two documented and proven examples of the paranormal or psychic powers?”

the subtitle of the book Conscious Universe is The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. i've been linking to it for how many times now. turn the book on Theme 2: Evidence. and start from there. there's more than one or two documented samples. but as if that would convince you :)

now, point me to a scientific study that sheds proof on nondual consciousness :)

“Spirit can be known, but not said; seen, but not spoken; pointed out, but not described; realized, but not reiterated. Conventional truths are known by science; absolute truth is known by satori. They simply are not the same thing.”

exactly my point too. that's why i call mine a belief, because i haven't yet awakened to Spirit :)

~C

“no commentary on the real examples i listed of what can and does go so horribly wrong in the spiritual community that is so confused about these things”

oh, i have a lot of things to say about that! i think those charlatans who consciously take people for a ride deserved to be mocked in the public arena. and i applaud Randi for doing that, for teaching us how to not be duped and be mindful of scams.

but then again, it takes two to tango. even three: media, the duped believers, and the charlatans. so the “blame” has to be spread out. but yes, the bigger blame should be on the people who take advantage of other people's griefs and misfortunes.

however, sometimes some people resort to questionable practices such as “faith healing” because science had failed them, e.g. either they can't afford the standard medical costs or the doctors had given up on their cases, or science simply has no answer to their problems. so what are these people supposed to do except turn into their mythic or magical beliefs for help?

in Spiral Dynamics lingo, ORANGE structure had failed them so their BLUE or even PURPLE meme gets triggered because of their life conditions. therefore, they become desperate to believe anything. and sometimes it works because of the mysterious thing called placebo effect which science has yet to explain.

and so i leave you with this quote from Michael Murphy via The Future of the Body:

“However, given the ancient witness to contemplative knowing and the great abundance of evidence for psi phenomena, many sources of which I cite in subsequent chapters, it is a great mistake to exclude such things from our accounts of human nature.  That is why many, if not most, great thinkers since antiquity have given paranormal events and mystical truth claims a central place in their philosophies.  ”

~C

Heh. Oh, don't worry. I think I can definitely tell the difference between wishful thinking and transrational spirituality. I think I know the difference between someone on an ill-conceived and irresponsible What the Bleep?! denial / power trip, and someone who is able to knowingly enter into the magical space in which water does respond to positive thought and where the animals do speak to us, and bewtween someone who sees the contextual value of rational proof and someone who has adopted science as their great myth. And I think I can tell the difference between charlatan psychics and carriers of the dharma. I think I can tell the difference between drug-induced psychosis and transcendent openings.

Because really …I'm not about to encourage someone to go off their meds because they can no longer hear the voice of God.

I also don't think that “regressive spirituality” is going to be helped at all by pointing the finger at mythological and magical thinking, nor do I think that those who are bent on believing such things are going to be much persuaded by being yelled at or argued with. As I wrote above, I'd venture that the route for healing involves encouraging an embrace of mythology. I'd suggest that we might work on listening more to the magic of the ordinary and to discovering the deep myths inherent in our embodiment in the world, to honoring the whispers of the trees and the songs of the land around us. This magic is almost wholly gone from us; no wonder we feel the need to turn to the packaged promises of TV gurus. We're starved for a sense of wonder.

But why is this such a hot topic for you? I'm curious. You do seem to have a great deal of energy around it. I know you're familiar with shadow work, and with projection … is there anything here that's telling for you?

much love,
Siona

i was noticing yesterday, and maybe because I admitted to a fear of being burned at the stake the other day on my blog, but i am having this huge resistance energy coming up and i looked at it last night

there is a self-image of me as a “normal person” that i'm grasping to

long long history of being quite intellectual, rational, straight-A student, computer engineer, yada yada

everything doesn't fall neatly into “normal” and “paranormal” or “rational” and “magical” however

let's just say i have my own proof that time and space are squishier than they appear, yet that means nothing, one has to find out for oneself (although recommend No Boundary, esp time chapter)

i am disappointed that not one person has expressed any concern for the family of this boy who were duped by a phony and wealthy-from-it psychic

i guess i felt the blame and judgment behind the concern, and it's not as if i condone this behavior, which to me isn't so much about psychic ability or non-ability but  perhaps more about individual will and forceful egos - i'm not too certain anyone can command any of this transpersonal- transrational stuff at their own insistence, at least that has been my experience. people exert their own egoic wills all the time, it's part of the human condition, yes, often with unpredictable consequences - this is one of many

and i don't argue with reality (as much!) - i don't know why the situation unfolded as it did in the grand scheme of things - and i cannot pretend that I, Evelyn, have a clue how every event and situation should have unfolded or should be unfolding now

i don't tend to go back and play “what if” or argue with reality

after i went back a year after the tsunami, i noticed a lot of people were living variations of  a loop of “what if I had only had gone to church with my son…”, etc. hashing over and over what they could have done differently (that might have saved a loved one or friend or stranger alike) – of course, now with 20/20 hindsight

actually, i must confess, i myself really don't believe anyone - psychic or scientist or anyone, and especially anyone trying to persuade me - and I don't believe 'my' self, rather i suppose i place my trust more and more on a wisdom that buddhists call Prajnaparamita, and maybe in another sense it's what christians call the Holy Spirit, or grace

i fall silent more and more when people ask me to take sides, it's becoming increasingly impossible to choose whom to love anymore - i love people indiscriminately, on both sides, including those i'm not supposed to love, whom i don't even agree with, and who don't share my ideology

i realize the blessing that in the tsunami, there was really no one to blame unlike katrina or 9/11. yes, i blamed the boat crew fleetingly for dropping us off at the beach, rather than keeping us on the boat - but that would have only helped 20 of us. what about the other quarter million dead? and more than million homeless? without the layer of blame/judgment my mind was seeking, I was left with the pure overwhelm of the grief, sorrow… and heartbreak.

it is not as if there was one heart opening/shattering and then it is over
i feel this heartbreak more often than i care to whenever i look out and see people living in a nightmare, but i'm not really of much service when i'm at the point of tears. i suppose for zaadzers whom appear to have a boddhisattvic bent, this is a common heartbreak.

but  too much sentimentalizing separates 'me' from oneness; in the end, as Emerson said: “People only see what they are prepared to see.” i can be there available, and to extent direct transmission occurs wonderful, yet i'm been unconvinced that sheer power of persuasion do one iota of good unfortunately - typically it increases their resistance and fear

as far as your friends being misguided by so-called gurus or their own powers of healing, i am so sorry. for most people it is a step-by-step easing into trusting inner guidance. even i don't have the complete trust in prajnaparamita/grace/infinite myself to heal my own body of a serious disease (yet)….it is a huge leap to go from not even trusting that you'll find the book you need on the shelf at the bookstore (which majority don't) to curing AIDS

it was only after i read your review of Pan's Labyrinth (btw, I think that qualifies in the mythic & magical yearnings Siona refers to), that i saw that Alex Grey is a teacher for you (me too, coincidence that I refer to his ”The Mission of Art” in your review)

when i walked into his gallery, the sacred chapel of mirrors, in manhattan two days after 9/11/06, i knew immediately he was awake because in huge lettering in an archway entrace it read:

SURRENDER TO LOVE

i think in the end, all the misguided meanderings that people take on the journey (and boy i have plenty of tales and they're not all pretty and light), is because we suspect there is something true and desirous in that, SURRENDER TO LOVE, and we just don't know how

no commentary on the real examples i listed of what can and does go so horribly wrong in the spiritual community that is so confused about these things….

everything in samsara is colluding towards our awakening

i also find it nigh impossible to judge things as right or wrong…rather, to me, it is as it is

that's why i couldn't adddress

no acknowledgment (except for a little from c4) of the several referred to cases of fraudulent paranormal stuff, and what's more not a single case of evidence to the contrary from any of you

i don't spend much time in the paranormal proof world mainly as i said because i don't then to believe anyone else's so-called proof -  i gotta feel it for myself

at the same time, i might not believe anyone verbatim, but if it rings true, i do investigate and inquire and leave the door open for possiblity

Adyashanti does a great job of addressing how awake non-dual consciousness affects the manifest in his chapter on Harmonization in his book, Emptiness Dancing. Again, stuff that could be classified 'paranormal' by some.

also, I think there would be people that would classify Dr. Len and ho 'oponopono as 'paranormal' - and i only direct you to it because i have had my own direct experimentation with ho'oponopono:

http://gracefulpresence.blogspot.com/2006/09/exposure_14.html

Ee. I have a feeling I'm going to be writing another long one. ;)

Point taken on the energy, Julian, and thank you for being so gracious about my word about shadows. I do appreciate that you have a nuanced and beautiful understanding of the value of symbolic mythology, something that I'm not sure most followers of Randi et al. do. It's just that, speaking from personal experience, I've found that symbolic mythology is only a small part of what the realm of myth has to offer. But this discussion, I think, we're working on in another pod. :)

Proving the paranormal is a little like proving art – it is by definition outside the domain of science. If the paranormal is 'proven,' it becomes a normal, scientific phenomenon, no? At one time we would have had found it utterly surreal and bizarre to think that the earth was a lump of round matter hurtling around a flaming gaseous orb. Now it's understood as a scientific fact. At one time we would have found it unbelievable that human beings could fly. Now we take regular trips in airplanes.

(I'm curious, though, Julian, what your understanding of science is. Do you know that science doesn't prove anything? Nothing can be proven in science; the only place where proof has any absolute meaning is in the [arbitrary] realms of mathematics and philosophy. We have no proof of 'ordinary' things, either. You're asking for the impossible: “the suggestion that anything should be proven in order to be valid” is meaningless in the material realm.)

And I've pointed this out before, but faith in reason causes great suffering, too. Again, we place our faith in cars and tanks and guns and hospitals and industrial food production … and these things, it seems to me, cause far, far more damage than the spiritual superstitions of a small minority.

Because I see a problem with the pharmaceutical industry charging desperate people $10 a pill to keep them quiet and docile and to maintain their place in an abusive society. I see a problem with the fact that enormous corporations are twisting the supposed neutrality of science to support their claims (see Exxon's recent offer to any scientist who'd 'debunk' global warming). I see a problem with the fact that the military-industrial complex, along with the media, are pulling a far, far greater con act than any pay-per-minute psychic, and I see a problem with a fact that all of us - me included - are complicit in this great magic act.

But I'll address your questions.

1. Yes, there's a problem, but people are free to believe what they will. I'm glad there are debunkers out there, but I think attacking the problem is different, and more damaging, than healing the wounds that lead people to seek solace in such things.

2. I see how this could give spirituality a bad name, but frankly, I think anyone who takes these things seriously, and who might confuse them with what I'll call 'true' spirituality is out of touch with their OWN sense of what's real, and that this is their problem, and something that they'll have to discover from within, not something that can be adjusted from the outside.

3. Does spirituality have real value? I don't know. It might for me; I don't know whether it does for anyone else. (Julian … have you welcomed Jesus into your heart? ;) )

4. What if it's just that spirituality IS difficult? It requires wrestling with one's sense of self, with determining for ONESELF what is true and real and authentic, and these lessons are frequently hard-won. The pain is part of the process. I wouldn't impose legislation that required all mothers-to-be to take a drug that would spare them the pains of labor, and I'm not about to prescribe an easy spirituality, either.

a) Naive people CAN get good information about how to sort through the dizzying mass of pop spirituality. The information is out there; if they want to find it, they can. We're here, right? You're not holding anything back. ;)

b) Personally, I don't care about being perceived as a kook. I have a background in science. I majored, in part, in analytic philosophy; I've studied logic. I spent years in the thrall of Carl Sagan and I subscribed to CSICOP. I think the scientific method is an elegant tool; I think science is a beautiful, useful practice; I think critical thinking is radically underappreciated and lacking, drastically, in today's school system. I fully appreciate the value of skepticism. I can be that person. I just no longer find this route useful … it started getting in the way of me enjoying and appreciating the deeper, fuller, richness of both the universe and human subjectivity. I don't know. It doesn't matter so much to me anymore.

c) Intellectual people who are engaged in spiritual practice shouldn't be doing anything but engaging in spiritual practice. ;)

Julian.

I'm not interested in debating. If you have a minute, I'd invite you to have a look at this link and to scroll down to the ”Guidelines for Open Dialogue.” If you don't feel open toward this, no worries; I'm just, again, not particularly drawn toward arguing a point or winning a round; I'd rather use this as a forum to explore my shadows and, with luck, to find possibilities for a shared future. If your interests are different, then perhaps we could talk about that to start.

And I apologize if my attempt to point out other 'causes' of the suffering you see struck you as getting off track. No need to pursue that line further. ;)

I will, however, say that it's NOT a category error to say that one can have faith in science and / or reason; it's perfectly possible to be dogmatic about both. Rationalism cannot be rationally justified; Hume pretty much did dogmatic rationalism in somewhere around the 18th century. If you're interested, there's a good piece here on the relationship between critical thinking and dogmatic (aka faith-based) rationalism, and the bearing both have on moral discourse, which, I'd say, is what's at stake here. I would highly recommend it, because I think it's highly pertinent to the discussion we're engaged in. You want to talk about the relationship between critical thinking and spirituality, and I would venture that we're definitely dealing here with issues of right and wrong. That paper will help – and what can I say? I found it enjoyable purely as an intellectual exercise.

(And I know, it's long, but you've obviously read Wilber. ;) If you can handle him, you can handle this … and I personally have found it valuable not to take KW's interpretations of various philosophers, etc. on faith …)

Anyway. Even if you chose not to skim the paper, what do you hope to get from the debate you're looking for?

“c4chaos i would love to go into a debate on faith, rationality and the 4 quadrants - or something…”

bring it ;) you know where to find me. in the meantime, i'm having a lot of fun pondering on transhumanism. i think it's more exciting than psi. i mean who cares if you can flip a page from a book with your mind. i've got like 10 fingers to do it, not to mention my toes :)

again, just to make it clear. charlatans suck big balls. and there are charlatans everwhere, in churches, in spiritual circles, and especially in scientific circles.

and so i leave you with this quote from one of my mentors who happen to be a paranormal researcher (though he hates the word paranormal):

“ESP should not be pursued for its own sake, but only as a means toward spiritual development and enlightenment. The real value of developing one's psychic ability is in the idea that often, it is through psychics or paranormal phenomena that we arrive at the truth of our inherent divinity and spirituality. Enlightenment cannot be attained without some  form of psychic perception. One has to go beyond reason, beyond the ordinary conscious level of awareness to become aware of a spiritual truth and to commune with our higher self – the divine nature of every human being. As long as one's sight is set towards this loftier goal, there will be no problems of falling into a psychic trap.”

~C

Julian,

Thanks for bringing back the rational. Sometimes it seems in our quest to go trans-rational, we leave out good, clear, rational inquiry.

As for your questions…

1) i know you think this is silly on my part - but do you guys not see a problem with someone charging desperate people $700 for 20 minutes based on a con around “psychic”powers?

If it were clearly billed “for enertainment purposes only,” people could spend whatever they want (I'd still think it was stupid!). But yes, I feel it's deeply unethical to charge desperate, emotionally strained people $700 for 20 minutes for false help. It gives spirituality and all the helping professions a bad name.

The ethical response would be to say “I'm an entertainer, and cannot help with your situation. I can however refer you to several competent therapists and life coaches if you want professional assistance with this difficult situation you are experiencing.”

2) don’t you see how this gives spirituality a bad name? think about it - how many people’s only experience of spirituality will be cnn exposing of people like sylvia browne?

Yes, I agree. I also feel (perhaps too cynically) that given real spirituality, many people won't get it, and they'll seek out “The Secret” and related crap.

I have a friend who bills herself as a psychic, but it's a redefinition of the word–she has basically refined her intuition and people skills through a series of practices, study, and trainings, and now is quite good at helping people work with their problems. If she were approached to help with a kidnapping, she might make a guess, but she would let the parents know it is only a guess and very likely could be wrong, especially given her lack of experience with this (a detective that specializes in kidnapping would have much better intuition!).

I feel the same way when I do Life Coaching with my clients–my intuition is refined, so I guess at things that might help my clients, but I'm aware that my guesses are often wrong, and I tell my clients that!

3) if spirituality has real value (and i think it does) don’t you think it would be good to start to put out a meme that makes distinctions between this kinda superstition and real practice?

Yes, absolutely. Once again, I'm skeptical that one can directly reach people who are currently attracted to psychic charlatans, but I'm confident that we can reach the “early adopters” who then spread the meme for us (see Seth Godin's great book All Marketers Are Liars). In fact, the reason I am on the spiritual path I'm on is because of that very phenomenon–some authentic teachers and writers (like Ken Wilber) put out a meme that hit me at key times in my seeking, I met some “early adopters” (people who had been meditating Vipassana for 15 years, etc.), and I soon adopted this meme, and now I'm spreading it!

4) most people get into spirituality at a difficult time - wouldn’t it be good if they could be better educated from the start, protected for the ubiquitous cons and scams and guided toward things that would actualy be healing and growth-supporting instead of regressive?

Oh, and the other thing about “paranormal” or “supernatural” powers that do in fact exist, is that they aren't really that weird, they generally show up in communities of people, and they can always be explained rationally. NLP does a great job with that–it started with studying expert therapists and then systematically breaking down what they did and modeling it so that others could reproduce their results consistently. Very rational, yet leads to “supernatural” intuition with people when studied and practiced.

I've found that many people who are more right brained, feminine, or intuitive are desperately seeking validation for their way of viewing the world and cling excessively to these supernatural or magical things. But their gifts can also be explained very rationally and scientifically without having to adopt a superstitious philosophy of life!

I'm just going to quote:

—————

- Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.

- In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal.

- In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.

- Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view.

- Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth.

- Dialogue causes introspection on one's own position. Debate causes critique of the other position.

- Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

- Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

- In dialogue, one submits one's best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

- Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.

- In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences.

- In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate, one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other positions.

- Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.

- Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.

- Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion.

——————–

I don't think you're confused, but I do think you're trumpeting an agenda of rationalism. Again, if that's your game, that's totally cool. I'm just pushing, I think, for a little insight into the nature of proselytizing. ;)

I also don't think I'm confused. I do see where you're coming from, and I feel I understand your concerns, and I think they're wholly understandable within a particular context. I just don't feel the same urgency that you do about prescribing belief systems (and I'm trying, I suppose, to explore why this is), nor do I think that, if conversion-to-reason is your goal, that rational debate is going to help your cause … and here, too, I'm trying to explore why.

Does that help?

“but um what do mean by scientific charlatan please?”

oh man, how do i start. let me just say that science just like every human endeavor is also plagued with self-interest and intellectual and political bias. some of them harmless, some of them harmful. scientific papers are falsified, scientific circles are also influenced via lobbying. check out this video of Michael Crichton talking about gene patenting.

~C

and to all you who knowingly, wisely, certainly keep off-handedly saying “there are some real psychic powers/paranormal events” ante up mofo's! - i am so ready to see them!

are you?
I gave you references to Yogananda, Dipa Ma, Malidome Some, Dr. Len, Adyashanti (Harmonization chapter) and KW (Time chapter in No Boundary). All non-fiction and referencing so-called paranormal occurences in there by respected people. None of them will be proved on national TV anytime soon, trust me.

I say so-called paranormal because once we entertain the possiblity that we don't know so much about who we are, the nature of reality, what God is, etc. then we become teachable. In that space of questioning, then we find that there are no exclusive, priliveged, special secrets and powers - it's an open secret for anyone that is sincerely wil