Michael Prescott's Blog

Seeing the light

I've been reading Richard Maurice Bucke's classic work Cosmic Consciousness recently, and it's reminded me of an experience I had when I was 17 years old. At that time I was rather morbidly fixated on the question of the meaning of life, which was tied in with the issue of my own mortality. I was torn in two opposite directions, Christianity and atheism. As a result, I alternated between reading books by the Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis and the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand. In many ways I gravitated more toward Rand's view of the world, but part of me wanted the assurance that seemed to come with Christian faith.

One night I was reading a book about Christianity -- not one of Lewis's books, I believe -- and I came across a suggested meditative exercise. The author said that direct personal knowledge of Christ was available to anyone who reached out and asked for it. It's been more than 30 years since this happened, so unfortunately I don't remember the book in question or exactly what the author said. But if I recall correctly, the meditation consisted of closing your eyes, imagining a closed door, and then seeing the door open and Christ waiting for you.

Though skeptical, I decided to try it. I did close my eyes, I visualized the door, I saw it open, and there was Christ. And then a most peculiar thing happened. All at once I had the subjective impression of a very bright light, reddish gold, warm and comforting, and with it came the sense that my fear of death was utterly unwarranted, that death was only an illusion, that immortality was guaranteed, and that all the world was suffused by this healing red-gold light.

I was shocked that the meditation had yielded this result and didn't know what to make of it, nor did I discuss it with anyone. For the next two or three days the afterglow of this experience stayed with me. At the time I was commuting into New York City to work a summer job, and I remember riding the train and thinking that the other commuters, all of them, were souls, immortal souls, bathed in the same surreal light I'd seen. One lunch hour I crossed a busy Manhattan street and risked being hit by a car; a traffic cop shook his head disapprovingly at me as if to say I'd cut it awfully close. My feeling, though, was that being hit by a car was of no importance at all. Life and death were illusions, and physical mishaps were unimportant.

As I say, I remained in this state of mind for two or three days, but gradually the aftereffects of my experience diminished and then disappeared entirely.

Now you might think that this revelation or moment of insight, or whatever you want to call it, would have confirmed me as a Christian or at least as a theist. Not so. Once the feeling had passed, I reverted to my usual rationalistic self. I dismissed the experience as some kind of odd psychological quirk. In fact, I was embarrassed by it. If anything, my embarrassment probably hastened my progress in the direction of atheism, and I ended up embracing Ayn Rand's philosophy for the next few years. For a long time I never thought about the experience at all.

When I look back on it now, I think I had a momentary and partial glimpse of what Bucke calls "cosmic consciousness." It was certainly not complete. I did not have a sense of the unity of all living things or of all creation; I did not feel at one with the universe. But I did experience what Bucke calls the subjective light and the assurance of immortality.

Why, then, did I reject it so quickly? I think that at such a young age, I was not able to process what had happened. In the teenage years the ego is still very much in control. To surrender the ego is almost impossible. It was easier to rationalize the experience and suppress it. In his book, Bucke claims that experiences of cosmic consciousness almost never occur before the age of 35. I think he may be partly mistaken about this. Based on my own experience, I would say that much younger people can at least have glimmers of cosmic consciousness, but because they are not ready for the encounter, it does not leave any permanent impression on them and therefore does not show up in the record.

(Incidentally, Bucke also says that experiences of cosmic consciousness generally occur in spring or summer; for whatever it may be worth, my own experience took place in the summer.) 

George Bernard Shaw famously said that youth is wasted on the young. Certainly in this case, he was right. I would give a lot to have an experience like that now, when I could really appreciate it. Unfortunately I had it too soon!

Some people might ask if this experience of mine makes me more partial to Christianity as opposed to other religious traditions. It doesn't, because I think the same kind of meditative practice, in the same circumstances, could yield a similar result regardless of the particular deity invoked. People have had experiences of cosmic consciousness long before Christianity and in cultures untouched by Christianity. An interesting example of a non-Christian encounter with a deity is presented in the Roman novel The Golden Ass by Apuleius. Although most of the novel is a fable, the closing pages appear to be autobiographical, based on Apuleius' initiation into the Eleusynian mysteries. There is an eloquent and moving description of the narrator's vision of the goddess Isis, an experience that transforms him. (An excerpt of the scene can be read here.) So, from a personal standpoint, I don't think it makes much difference whether one is focused on Christ or Isis or Vishnu or some other deity, and therefore I don't take the experience as proving anything about Christianity in particular.

One thing is certain: if we could all have experiences like that on demand -- if we could live in that reddish gold light (which I've never forgotten) all the time, the world would be a much better place.

Happy New Year.

Dreamtime

Here's an incident that's trivial in itself, but suggestive.

Last night I had a vivid dream in which I was at a hotel spa. For some reason the treatment consisted of having dental paste shoved into my mouth. I hadn't expected this, and started to choke. Finally I had to spit out the paste. 

Because the dream had some possible symbolic significance, I wrote it down when I got up, and even described it in an email to a friend. 

Later in the day, I turned on the sitcom The King of Queens on TBS. In the episode, the lead character visits the dentist. The dentist unexpectedly pushes a dental-paste mold into the character's mouth, and he starts to choke on it. The choking scene plays out for more than a minute while other action is taking place in the background.

The parallel between the dream and the episode is pretty close. How often does the subject of choking on dental paste come up?

If this were the only premonitory dream I'd ever had, I might dismiss it as a coincidence. But I've had many others. The difference in this case is that I remembered to write it down, and I even shared it with a friend - before I saw the sitcom episode.

As I said, the premonition was trivial. But the implications aren't. If we can tune in to the future, even in inconsequential ways, when we are asleep and dreaming, then what is the relationship between the present and the future?

J.W. Dunne addresses the same issue in his 1927 book An Experiment with Time, which details the author's precognitive dreaming. 

Follow-up

My post on "Traditional Christianity's Insuperable Problem" has generated a lot of discussion. While all the comments were interesting and provocative, I especially wanted to highlight a few that put a different spin on the interpretation of the verse in question.

Art wrote:

I always think of it as meaning "My teachings are the way, the truth, and the life: no one can really understand God except if it's similar to what I've taught; no one comes to know and understand God unless it's similar to what I've taught." 

MarkL:

I just read John 14.6. Where does it say that YOU have to know Jesus? Or believe that he is God? That is pure egotism on your part. Jesus just says "the only way to God is through me." So? The pilot of an airplane can legitimately say that the only way you'll get to your destination is through him, but that doesn't mean that you have to believe in the pilot's ability to fly the plane. It is only necessary that the pilot fly the plane because he believes that you need him.

Patrick:

Jesus' words could be interpreted as follows:

people experience The Father *because* of Jesus, regardless of whether they "know Jesus" in this life or the next (there is no reason to restrict "salvation" to earthly life)

or

people experience The Father by following Jesus' principles (i.e. loving their neighbors as themselves).

Although I don't think the verse traditionally has been interpreted in these ways, I agree that any of these interpretations can make sense of it and that one or more of them may be close to what Jesus actually meant (assuming he ever said it in the first place, and that it isn't simply a personal statement on the part of the author of John's Gospel).

From the archives: Shakespeare the drunk?

As a break from quarrels about consciousness, religion, and other weighty topics, here's a post that originally appeared on this site on January 29, 2006. I've updated some of the links and made a few minor changes in the wording. For my other posts on the Shakespeare authorship controversy, click here.

----

A fascinating article appears in the latest edition of the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, a publication of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, which seeks to prove that Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, was the actual author of the works attributed to the man from Stratford. The essay, by Robert R. Prechter, Jr., is entitled "Might Edward de Vere Have Suffered from Alcoholism?" (The essay is online here.) Since Oxfordians believe that de Vere was Shakespeare, this question is tantamount to asking if the most famous author in English literature was an alcoholic.

On its surface, the idea might seem absurd. As Prechter points out, many people assume that no high-achieving individual could possibly suffer from an addiction to drink. But, as he goes on to say, this belief "is not just false, but backward.... One of the behavioral signs in early and middle-stage alcoholism is a drive for extreme achievement.... Not only can most alcoholics function, but many of them, in some ways, perform better than the rest of us."

Citing alcoholism researcher Doug Thorburn as his main source, Prechter lists a number of famous, high achieving people who were known for an addiction to alcohol and/or drugs: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Beethoven, John Lennon, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, Eugene O'Neill, John Steinbeck, Edgar Allan Poe, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Stephen King, e.e. cummings, James Thurber, Dorothy Parker ... and the list goes on. At the end of this section, Prechter concludes, "One may certainly wish to argue against de Vere's having alcoholism, but his prodigious achievement in the arts is not good evidence to the contrary."

There is certainly reason to suspect that de Vere had trouble with liquor. His personal life was a mess. His first marriage devolved into a shambles; he became estranged from his wife for years after being convinced that the daughter she had borne him was illegitimate. He expended stupendous sums on travel and entertainment and prodigious feats of charity, depleting his once vast estate, and eventually had to depend on lavish government subsidies to maintain his lifestyle. His investments generally took the form of high stakes gambles that rarely paid off. And like many alcoholics, he was prone to angry fits of tempers and even violence. He once killed a man in a street brawl. On more than one occasion he alienated the Queen by disobeying her commands, and he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for several months.

If he was Shakespeare, then he could be almost unconscionably cruel; some of the Bard's buffoonish characters are clearly parodies of de Vere's rivals at court, depicted in the most humiliating possible terms. Prechter asks, "Who among us would want to be lampooned as was Malvolio in front of our eyes and those of everyone in town?... How many non-alcoholics craft such detailed humiliations of others? On the other hand, some alcoholics, such as Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Hunter Thompson, were expert at doing so."

Indeed, the portrait of Malvolio in Twelfth Night may be one of the cruelest examples of literary revenge in history. Oxfordians believe that Malvolio was based on the courtier Christopher Hatton, a man of modest origins who had risen in Queen Elizabeth's favor. Malvolio, whose very name translates into something like "ill will," is depicted as a social-climbing oaf, an overreaching servant who imagines that he can woo his aristocratic mistress and who is utterly humiliated in the process.

If the play, or some early version of it, was performed at court for the entertainment of the Queen and her hangers-on, then Hatton would have had the excruciatingly uncomfortable experience of seeing himself ridiculed unmercifully in front of all his friends and colleagues, while de Vere presumably chortled with amusement. It is certainly possible that a non-alcoholic could come up with such punishment for an adversary, but a man "in his cups" might seem more likely to carry through on the project.

Prechter notes that Shakespeare's works often feature the tavern as their setting. One of Shakespeare's most distinctive characters is Falstaff, who is perpetually intoxicated. Prechter notes, "He even casts Prince Hal, the obvious de Vere figure in the Henry IV plays, as a smart, affable carouser who will rise heroically to the occasion when the time comes for him to reign."

Another possible indication of Shakespeare/de Vere's alcoholism is the sheer vividness and verve of his writing, the remarkably sustained explorations of intense emotional states, the almost giddy wordplay with its inexhaustible variety and inventiveness, the rash of metaphors and similes constantly spouting from his pen, sometimes in such quick succession that their meaning becomes difficult to follow even on the printed page, let alone in the theater. Much of Shakespeare's work gives the impression of having been written at white heat, in a kind of fit of creativity, a passionate state of rapture and self-absorption. At the very least, this type of writing is not inconsistent with the wildly overflowing output of the high-achieving alcoholic.

As Prechter says, "De Vere's writing is so noble, so insightful, so passionate, that he stirs us to the zenith of our emotions. But then again, that's what peak-performing alcoholics do best: they win people over and make us love them. Although their personal lives exasperate us, we excuse their behavior because we are infatuated. We love Marilyn. We love Sinatra. We love Lennon. We love Elvis. We love Shakespeare. Non-alcoholics do not generally inspire idolization, but alcoholics do, all the time."

Traditional Christianity's insuperable problem

Since my last post dealt with the teachings of Jesus, I thought I'd follow up by discussing what is, for me, the biggest problem with the standard interpretation of Christianity. (At least, this interpretation has historically been standard, though as readers have noted in the comments thread, there have been doctrinal changes in some churches in recent years.)

The problem is summed up by John 14:6, one of the most famous passages in the New Testament:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."  (New American Standard translation)

As interpreted by most conventional authorities, the meaning is quite simple. If you haven't accepted Jesus, salvation is not yours. The gates of heaven are shut to you. You are bound for hell or, maybe, purgatory. Case closed.

Now, it's pretty obvious that nothing could be more unfair than this dictate. To see why, let's take the case of White Feather, a Native American whom I just made up.

White Feather lived in what is now Colorado, sometime around 1000 A.D., long before the coming of European settlers to North America. He lived a good life. He was kind to his wife and children, brave in defending his home, hard-working and honest. He sought higher spiritual truths, discussing the mysteries of life with tribal elders and medicine men. He always did what he thought was right, even at the cost of his own comfort or convenience.

But of course he never accepted Jesus. How could he? He never heard of Jesus. The name was never so much as whispered to him. He worshiped the spirits of his tribe, the only deities he knew.

What happened to good old White Feather when he died? Well, if John 14:6 is taken literally, he certainly didn't go to heaven. He couldn't come to the Father through the Son, because the Son was entirely unknown to him.

The best White Feather could hope for was an eternity in purgatory - that is, limbo. Through absolutely no fault of his own, but something more in the nature of a cosmic bureaucratic oversight, this very good man is eternally denied the happiness granted to even rather ordinary Christians.

I think that even our normal human sense of fairness rebels at this outcome, and we ought to assume that God's sense of fairness is infinitely more refined than our own. How, then, can God stand for such a state of affairs?

Well, we're told, God works in mysterious ways and ours is not to question, only to believe. But this is hardly a satisfactory answer, and I doubt it would be any more satisfactory to White Feather, currently cooling his heels in purgatory (or being pitchforked eternally in the nether regions - and we all know how painful a pitchfork in the nether regions can be).

Generations of Christian missionaries have gone out into the world to save other White Feathers from this purported fate. In their zeal to see that the "heathens" and "pagans" escape perdition, they have trampled over native cultures and, in some cases (though not all), cooperated with those Europeans who were enslaving and exploiting the natives. And why? Because of John 14:6 - "No one comes to the Father but through Me."

A tenet so grossly unfair, which has had such historically tragic consequences, constitutes - to me - an insuperable objection to traditional Christianity.  I can't see how anyone would feel that God's treatment of White Feather was morally acceptable.

Now, there are ways around this problem, but they involve departing from the historical orthodoxy. One way is simply to deny that Jesus ever said the words attributed to him in John 14:6. This is not too hard a position to maintain. The Gospel of John is generally thought to be have been written later than the three synoptic gospels, and to be less historically reliable. (This is not to say that the synoptic gospels are generally reliable either; that's a separate question.) Much of John consists of long monologues delivered by Jesus to his disciples, which appear to be John's own musings on the deeper meaning of Jesus' ministry - John's thoughts, not Jesus'. Also, I would personally prefer to believe that the real Jesus did not castigate his fellow Jews as sons of the devil, as John's Jesus does in a notorious passage (John 8:44) that has inspired much anti-Semitism.

It is quite possible, then - and I think very likely - that John 14:6 is the author's invention, meant to express his personal understanding of Jesus' mission and importance, rather than something Jesus said himself.

Even if one rejects this argument, there is a way of interpreting the passage in a more tolerant light. The interpretation is that here Jesus was speaking not as himself but as the voice of Cosmic Consciousness, in which case the meaning would be: "Cosmic Consciousness is the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the Godhead except through Cosmic Consciousness." This may in fact have been what John (or Jesus) was trying to get at with those words. John is the most mystical of the four canonical gospel authors, the one who starts his story, "In the beginning was the Word ..." It would be quite like him to see Jesus as mainly an incarnation of, and spokesman for, Cosmic Consciousness.

If this interpretation is correct, then the problem disappears. There is nothing to prevent White Feather or anyone else from experiencing Cosmic Consciousness at some point in his (premortem or postmortem) existence. The road to God - and heaven - is then open to anyone whose mind has expanded sufficiently to "see the light" ... not the light of Jesus specifically, but of Cosmic Consciousness, regardless of its cultural trappings.

But while this interpretation rescues John 14:6 from the charge of monstrous unfairness, it also takes us somewhat afield from traditional Christianity, which insisted and, in large part, continues to insist that Jesus really said it and meant it quite literally: Either you accept him personally or you'll be cast into the outer darkness.

As long as much of Christianity continues to endorse this reading, it will face resistance from those of us who think the White Feathers of the world deserve better. 

(Post updated and retitled on December 20 to reflect some concerns raised in the thread.)

Jesus and the expansion of consciousness

Lately I've been thinking about the teachings of Jesus and how they relate to the stages of personal development studied by transpersonal psychologists. I think that approaching the subject in this way can yield some worthwhile insights. In what follows, I've drawn exclusively from the Gospel of Matthew in order to explore this interpretation of Jesus' ministry.

Before continuing, it's worth pointing out one troubling fact about Matthew's Gospel: it shows a distinct fascination with hell and damnation. People may legitimately wonder if a person of genuinely elevated consciousness would be so eager to consign his fellow human beings to eternal suffering. Was Jesus really obsessed with hellfire?

Of course there's no way to be sure, but bear in mind that the other gospels have significantly fewer references to perdition. Maybe this particular theme reflects Matthew's mindset more than Jesus'.

Moreover, the term typically used for hell in the gospels is Gehenna, which was an actual location outside Jerusalem -- a refuse pit where trash was set on fire. It is at least possible that Gehenna was intended only as a metaphor. Back when the USSR collapsed, it was not uncommon for people to say that Soviet communism had been "tossed on the ash heap of history." Naturally they did not mean that Soviet communism had literally been thrown onto an ash heap. They meant that Soviet communism had failed the test of history and had been discarded. Arguably, Jesus was saying something similar -- that people who failed to live up to their highest potential would fail the test and be tossed on a (metaphorical) ash heap. The use of colorful metaphor was, after all, a distinctive feature of Hebrew prophets, and sometimes what started out as metaphor would be interpreted all too literally by later generations.

If there's any truth to this suggestion, then Jesus may not have been concerned with damning large portions of humanity to the flames, even if some of his followers (like Matthew) had a less elevated outlook.

In any event, what seems inarguable is that Jesus was deeply concerned with raising the level of consciousness of his closest followers. It may be assumed that, like most people and now, the apostles started off with a fairly conventional mindset, probably corresponding to the stage identified by Jenny Wade (in her book Changes of Mind) as achievement/affiliative consciousness. Achievement consciousness is the outlook of the workaholic who defines himself in terms of his job, his earnings, his accomplishments. Affiliative consciousness is the outlook of the "family man" (or woman) whose life has meaning primarily in terms of relations with other people. Wade sees authentic consciousness as the next step in development, followed by transcendent consciousness, and culminating in unity consciousness -- the realization of mystical oneness.

To simplify things, we might distinguish simply between conventional consciousness, represented by the achievement/affiliative stage, and cosmic consciousness, a term most closely associated with the 19th century theorist Richard Maurice Bucke. Some of what follows is drawn from or inspired by Bucke's treatment of Jesus in his landmark book Cosmic Consciousness.

Basically, much of Jesus' teaching can be seen as an attempt to raise his closest followers at least to the level of authentic consciousness, if not beyond.. To do so it is first necessary for his followers to transcend either achievement consciousness or affiliative consciousness. Some of the more cryptic sayings of Jesus may make sense when interpreted in this light.

To break down the assumptions behind affiliative consciousness Jesus demands that his inner circle reject the obligations of family. He tells a man to leave his father unburied (Matthew 8:22), he says his mission will divide families (10:34ff), he even denies his own mother and brothers (12:48).

To break down the assumptions behind achievement consciousness Jesus advises his followers not to worry about worldly success or even bare physical survival (6:25ff). He tells them to lay up treasure in heaven rather than on earth (6:19), and that spiritual advancement is the pearl of great price for which all material goods may be sacrificed (13:45). He advises a potential follower to sell all he owns (19:21) and says that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (19:23, 24) - i.e., cannot achieve a higher level of consciousness. He says that worldly preeminence means nothing, and that the first shall be last and the last first (19:30), and he tells the parable of the vineyard laborers who were rewarded equally for unequal work (20:1ff) - implying that worldly accomplishment is not the standard by which spiritual progress shall be measured.

Equally important, he must break down the more basic assumptions underlying conventional consciousness, namely, that one's personal worth is determined by one's social roles and social standing. Famously, Jesus carries out this part of his agenda by openly consorting with "tax collectors and sinners" (9:11), including prostitutes and other social outcasts. In the Beatitudes (5:3ff) he reverses the normal order of things by saying that the humble shall be exalted, the hungry shall be fed, and the poor shall be enriched. He suggests emulating the innocent child (18:4), who has not yet been socialized into viewing people according to their status and rank.

The point in all this, of course, is not merely to undercut the apostles' conventional assumptions, but to uplift them to a new, higher consciousness - cosmic consciousness, the state of mind that Jesus himself knew and embodied. Jesus points the way to this higher consciousness throughout his teachings. He requires his followers to love their enemies as well as their friends, emulating God who sends down sunshine equally on the evil and the good (5:44). His followers must "be perfect" even as God is perfect (5:48), i.e., they must aspire to the transcendent, nonjudgmental consciousness that is the highest stage of personal development. His followers are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (5:13,14), because only the spiritual pioneers -- those who have ascended to the higher reaches of consciousness -- can enhance and illuminate the lives of their fellows. Even the least of his followers will be greater than John the Baptist (11:11), because John, for all his insights, did not attain to cosmic consciousness, as Jesus' apostles are expected to do. Thus his apostles are blessed (13:16ff) above all others, and having attained more, they will be given more (13:12). They are required to make maximum use of the gift of higher consciousness (25:14ff), which can achieve great things from small beginnings (13:31). This cosmic consciousness can be characterized as "the kingdom of heaven" or the Holy Spirit (12:32); it spreads invisibly and inexorably throughout the world (13:33); it may be hidden, but once found, it is worth any sacrifice (12:44); not all will attain it, but those who do will be richly prized (13:47); the wise will earnestly await its coming, while the foolish will dither their lives away (25:1ff).

I'm not saying that this interpretation exhausts the meaning of Jesus' ministry - far from it. But I do think it can be helpful in making sense of moral prescriptions that may otherwise seem incomprehensible or simply unworkable. A key point, often overlooked, is that Jesus made these demands of his chosen disciples, his inner circle, not of everybody who happened to show up for one of his sermons. He didn't expect everybody to abandon their families, their property, etc.; society could hardly function if we all walked away from our social roles. But there was never any danger of that, anyway. Most people have no interest in scaling the peaks of spiritual development. At best, they might have picked up a few helpful ethical precepts from Jesus' teaching. They were never expected to understand fully (13:13).

But for the chosen few, the ones called to ascend to the next stage of personal evolution, the abandonment of their conventional lives was a necessary step - painful, no doubt, and challenging and dangerous, but essential if they were to follow their master where he led.

Book review: The Articulate Dead

I was lucky enough to receive an advance copy of Michael Tymn's new book The Articulate Dead, which is now available at Amazon.com and can also be ordered direct from Galde Press. Regular readers of this blog know that Michael sometimes comments here; he also has his own blog in which he discusses evidence for life after death, concentrating on research done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The same era is the focus of The Articulate Dead, an engaging, detailed, and persuasive look at the first scientific investigations of mediumship. It's unfortunate that much of this early evidence is routinely overlooked by modern-day afterlife enthusiasts. In many ways mediumship of that time was more robust than mediumship today. One reason is that trance mediumship was more common back then. Today's mediums seem reluctant to go into trance, perhaps because they don't want to surrender control to that extent, or perhaps because they simply lack the patience to develop the necessary skill. As Michael points out, people at the turn of the last century didn't have television, video games, and the Internet to distract them; they were more willing to sit for a long time in the dark and wait patiently for phenomena to take place. He mentions psychical researcher Hamlin Garland, who

reported on sitting silently in the darkened séance circle for as long as four hours before anything developed. Sophia Williams, one of the mediums investigated by [Hamlin] Garland, wrote a book on the subject of 1946. In it, she states that she sat quietly each day for four years to learn the art of relaxation and complete detachment before her own mediumship really began to develop.

How many people today have that kind of patience?

Some modern-day researchers may think their counterparts from a century ago lacked the necessary investigative skills or skeptical attitude. But Michael's book refutes this assumption. Again and again he shows that many of these early researchers were intelligently skeptical, highly knowledgeable about the tricks played by phony mediums, and capable of coming up with stringent precautions against fraud. And because some mediums -- notably Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard -- submitted to research for years or even decades, a body of evidence was built up that went a long way toward convincing even the most hardheaded skeptics.

The Articulate Dead begins with early investigators who are little known today -- men like John W. Edmonds, chief justice of the New York State Supreme Court; Nathaniel Tallmadge, former senator; Robert Hare, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania; and James Mapes, professor of chemistry and natural philosophy. These men demonstrated remarkable courage and intellectual independence as they bucked the conventional wisdom of their day and risked their considerable reputations in the defense of unfashionable ideas.

We then read about Sir William Crookes's investigation of famed medium Daniel Home; the mediumship of William Stainton Moses, a church of England minister converted to spiritualism; Sir William Barrett's experiments with hypnotism, physical mediumship, and the Ouija board; and postmortem communications attributed to Frederick Myers, author of the classic work Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death. Later chapters cover the Boston medium Leonora Piper (including an episode in which Augustus Martin, the late mayor of Boston, collaborated with his one-time secretary on a book titled Both Sides of the Veil); and the English medium Gladys Osborne Leonard, whose communicants included not only Raymond Lodge, son of physicist and psychical researcher Sir Oliver Lodge, but also Claude Kelway-Bamber who, like Raymond, had been killed in World War I.

Part Four of the book is perhaps the most interesting, because it deals with a variety of studies that are rarely discussed today. In one case, the author Frank Stockton communicated through Etta De Camp via automatic writing, dictating stories to her in his distinctive style. "I am very fortunate in finding you, my dear madam, as you are sensitive to my vibration, and so I will reach you easily," Stockton told her. "We are in perfect accord, and, together, will do a great work, and teach the old world what can be done even after the so-called end of man."

Michael Tymn has a particular interest in Hamlin Garland and devotes two chapters to this often overlooked researcher. Garland's precautions in dealing with materialization medium Daniel Peters are as good as any we would expect from the most skeptical researcher in our time. Garland

tied Peters to a chair with a spool of dental floss, being sure his wrists were securely bound. As an extra precaution, Garland tied the sitter on Peters's right to Peters, while he (Garland) sat on his left. After the lights were turned out, Garland noticed a faint, bluish, smoke-like cloud developing in front of Peters. A hand darted out of the cloud and firmly grabbed Garland's left wrist. This spectral hand then darted to the center of the table and took hold of a glass, lifting it to Peters's mouth so that he could drink. All the while, Garland controlled Peters's left hand and the sitter on his right controlled his right hand. Garland was certain that Peters had no accomplice. There was enough light for Garland to see the phantasmal arm clothed in gray vapor.

At a third sitting with Peters, Garland nailed Peters's clothing to the chair and again bound him with dental floss. A phantom appeared that spoke to the man next to Garland in Polish. The man stated that it was his brother. When that spirit faded out, Evans, Peters's guide, materialized and offered Garland his hand. Garland observed that the hand was "cobwebby" in texture and appeared to melt away. He felt its bones for a moment and when he released his grip the figure vanished like a bubble.

Garland's greatest psychic adventure, however, was reported in his 1939 book, The Mystery of the Buried Crosses. Relying only on mediumistic communications, Garland was able to hunt down long-buried Indian artifacts in the California and Mexico desert. An earlier investigator, relying on his wife's mediumistic abilities, had dug up approximately 1500 relics of this kind; Garland, continuing to work, was able to find 16 more.

The spirits would tell them where to go, where to stop, which direction to walk, and then where to dig. They found sixteen artifacts, similar in substance and design to those collected by the Parents [the husband-and-wife team who began this research], in ten widely separated locations. Some were in deep gullies, others high on cactus-covered hills far from the highway. One was hidden in a ledge of sandstone behind a wall of cactus plants which Garland had to chop away before finding it. For the skeptic who might have claimed that [medium Sophia] Williams went all over the state planting the artifacts for Garland to find, Garland wrote that this would have been an impossible task. Moreover, it was clear that the grounds covering the artifacts, some buried more than two feet deep, had not been disturbed for many years.

From here we read about Patience Worth, whose literary productions drew rave reviews in their day (although I must admit that I personally find them almost unreadable). Chapter 19 involves another special interest of Michael's -- the excavation of the Glastonbury Abbey in southwest England by Frederick Bligh Bond, accomplished with the help of spirit communications that told Bond where to dig. Most of the information was provided by a deceased monk named Johannes Bryant who allegedly lived from 1497 to 1533. "He described himself as a fat, cheery man who preferred fishing to his regular duties." Bond believed that the information provided by Johannes and other monks allowed him to make great progress in excavating the Abbey, but his success came to a rude end when he published a book about his experiments with mediumship.

It was the beginning of the end for Bond. From 1918 until his death in 1945, "he was immersed in another kind of quest," wrote his biographer, William W. Kenawall, "an endeavor to prove to the church, his architectural associates, his family, and his beloved Somerset Archaeological Society that he was neither a fraud nor partly insane."

The remaining chapters deal with Baptist minister Charles Mundell, who became a spiritualist and medium; the spirit rescue work done by psychiatrist Carl Wickland, who believed that many severe psychological disorders could be traced to spirit obsession; and messages from survivors of the Lusitania and Titanic disasters.

As you can see, there is a wealth of material packed into the 254 pages of this volume -- which also includes a glossary, timeline, bibliography, and a foreword by Donald Morse of the Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies. The fact that many of these stories have been inadequately treated in the literature of psychical research makes the book that much more important.

I have only a few minor regrets. One is that the publisher chose to simplify Michael's detailed footnotes, omitting page numbers and other identifying information; most of the books listed in the footnotes are included in the bibliography, but a few aren't, so when, for instance, "Brockris, 2005" or "Grossman, 2002" is cited in the text, there's no specific identification of the book or article that is meant. I've suggested that Mike might want to put his complete footnotes online for reference purposes.

Here and there you'll find a typo or two, not unusual in this day of rushed production schedules; Mike tells me he was particularly unhappy that a few words were dropped out of the text at the top of page 146, creating the unintended impression that William Barrett was "closed-minded and materialistic." (Mike meant to apply this description to Barrett's opponents, of course.)

These caveats are trivial. The Articulate Dead is an important contribution to the growing literature of afterlife studies. It's hard to see how any open-minded reader could come away from this book without taking the question of postmortem survival seriously. And like Deborah Blum's Ghost Hunters, Michael Tymn's The Articulate Dead should encourage new respect for the brave, lonely, and heretofore under-appreciated pioneers of psychical research.

Positively disintegrating

A reader named Elizabeth, writing in the comments thread of my post "Suffering," suggested that I take a look at the theoretical work of Polish psychologist  Kazimierz Dabrowski. I found a Dabrowski site that gives an overview of his work, and I do think it dovetails neatly with the point I was making in my post.

Dabrowski developed the "theory of positive disintegration," which essentially says that neurotic conflicts and personal crises are, or can be, the route to a fuller and more authentic understanding of oneself.

An introductory essay by W. Tillier explains:

The theory describes a process of personality development - the creation of a unique, individual personality.

Most people become socialized in their early family and school experiences. They largely accept the values and mores of society with little question and have no internal conflict in abiding by the basic tenets of society. In some cases, a person begins to notice and to imagine 'higher possibilities' in life. These disparities are driven by overexcitability -- an intense reaction to, and experience of the day-to-day stimuli of life. Eventually, one's perception of reality becomes differentiated into a hierarchy and all aspects of both external and internal life come to be evaluated on a vertical continuum of 'lower versus higher.' This experience often creates a series of deep and painful conflicts between lower, 'habitual' perceptions and reactions based on one's heredity and environment (socialization) and higher, volitional 'possibilities.' In the developing individual, these conflicts may lead to disintegrations and psychoneuroses, for Dabrowski, hallmarks of advanced growth. Eventually, through the processes of advanced development and positive disintegration, one is able to develop control over one's reactions and actions. Eventually, development culminates in the inhibition and extinction of lower levels of reality and behavior and their transcendence via the creation of a higher, autonomous and stable ideal self. The rote acceptance of social values yields to a critically examined and chosen hierarchy of values and aims that becomes a unique expression of the self -- becoming one's personality ideal.

Viewed this way, neurosis, conflict, and crisis are not so much problems to be solved as opportunities to be embraced.  Some quotes from Dabrowski in another presentation (PDF) on the same site make this clear:

Every authentic creative process consists of ‘loosening’, ‘splitting’ or ‘smashing’ the former reality. Every mental conflict is associated with disruption and pain; every step forward in the direction of authentic existence is combined with shocks, sorrows, suffering and distress....

The chances of developmental crises and their positive or negative outcomes depend on the character of the developmental potential, on the character of social influence, and on the activity (if present) of the third factor. . . . One also has to keep in mind that a developmental solution to a crisis means not a reintegration but an integration at a higher level of functioning....

Crises are periods of increased insight into oneself, creativity, and personality development....

Experiences of shock, stress and trauma, may accelerate development in individuals with innate potential for positive development. 

Dabrowski organized this process of positive disintegration into five stages or levels.  Level I is a stage of robotic conformity to social norms. In Level II, questions and doubts arise, destabilizing the personality. Level III, "spontaneous multilevel disintegration," is where things get interesting. 

Tillier tells us,

Dabrowski considered this level a period of "positive maladjustment." It is the point at which a person can appear neurotic and maladjusted, but is on the brink of reaching a higher level of development. Therapists may try to help the person adjust to the norms of society rather than help him or her reach the next level. Not everyone makes it to the next level. For some it can be a life-long struggle.

[Those who do reach Level IV] have learned to adjust to personal ideals, to live according to those ideals. They have strong and unshakable values. They are able to accept themselves and others, have a strong sense of responsibility, and are committed to serving others. They exhibit strong empathy, compassion, and self-awareness. To reach this state, however, one has to have gone through the struggle of level three. His previous self must disintegrate to make way for the more ideal self.

Level V is the point at which "inner  conflicts have all been resolved. Very few people reach this level, which is characterized by a life of service to humanity and living according to the highest and most universal principles of regard for humanity."

Tillier warns:

Progressing through the five levels is not easy and in fact can be emotionally painful. Many people who travel the path from one level to the next do not always do so purposely. Instead, they find themselves thrust into the path by extenuating circumstances, which include the death of a loved one, a near-death experience, or even a mystical experience. They may also subconsciously sense that they are ready for the next level.

The most difficult transition between levels is the one between level three and level four, and many people struggling to get past level three would benefit from counseling, provided the one providing it has some understanding of the theory and of giftedness. Without that understanding, a counselor may spend time trying to get the individual to adjust to life as it is rather than helping them move to the next level.

Once an individual begins to move into level four, the choice to move forward is a conscious one. The person is no longer afraid of the disintegration of the self and is able to accept the pain because he or she understands that it is necessary in order to progress to the higher levels of development.

Emphasizing the point that progress can be slow, Dabrowski is quoted (in the PDF presentation) as telling a young client that people on this path

must have much more time for a deep, creative development and that is why you will be growing for a long time. This is a very common phenomenon among creative people. Simply, they have such a great developmental potential, ‘they have the stuff to develop’ and that is why it takes them longer to give it full expression.

Dabrowski's theory is reportedly gaining new interest in the West, after having been largely overlooked during his lifetime. It is certainly interesting, and I'm inclined to agree with the points I've quoted here, at least based on my limited exposure to them. But I might part company with Dabrowski slightly in one respect.

As best I can tell, Dabrowski's model of human development basically ends with what we might call "authentic consciousness." But I think there are further stages of growth, as outlined in Jenny Wade's fine book Changes of Mind. (A good review of the book is here.)

Wade shows that, beyond authentic consciousness, there is transcendent consciousness and, finally, unity consciousness. I'm not sure Dabrowski's theory incorporates these admittedly rare stages of development, each of which would probably require a whole new process of "positive disintegration" to attain.  

In other words, I'm not sure Dabrowski's theory carries us as far along the path of human development as it possible to go. But it does seem to carry us further than more conventional psychological theories.

From the archives: The unsinkable Sylvia Browne

This post originally appeared on May 23, 2005. I haven't changed it, so some of the references are dated. I have updated a few links because the original links were defunct.

------

Yes, I think that many reported paranormal phenomena are real. And yes, this includes the abilities of some psychics and mediums. But do I believe in every psychic who shows up on TV? Not by a long shot.

Case in point: Sylvia Browne.

Browne is one of today's most popular self-proclaimed psychics, a regular fixture on The Montel Williams Show, and a frequent guest on Larry King Live. She has put out a large number of books dealing with everything from the interpretation of dreams to the building of the pyramids. I know people who are big fans. I must admit I am not one of them.

To me, Browne's technique consists of a few simple rules of thumb. First, tell people what they want to hear. If an audience member asks, "Will I meet Mr. Right?", be sure to answer, "Yes, absolutely. You'll meet him two and a half years from now, and he'll be dark-haired and Mediterranean ..."

Second, as far as possible say things that can't be checked. No one is going to follow up with that audience member two and a half years later to see how the prediction turned out.

Third, be as specific as possible about things that can be checked, and as vague as possible about things that can't. In her book on ghosts, Browne reports that she knows who killed Nicole Brown Simpson but won't give the killer's name because (I quote from memory) "this person likes to see his name in print and I won't give him the satisfaction." Yeah, right ... It seems clear enough that she is not giving the name because a) she doesn't want to be sued, and b) she doesn't want to be nailed down to a specific person. The way she phrased it, the "real killer" could be Simpson or Mark Fuhrman or anybody else, so she's safe on both counts.

Fourth, speak with absolute assurance at all times. On the Montel show in 2002, Browne predicted that the killer of Chandra Levy (the Washington intern whose disappearance became a major national news story) would be brought to justice by the end of the summer. But that summer and two more have come and gone, and the case remains unsolved. Still, she sounded completely sure of herself when she said it, and the audience murmured its approval.

Fifth, if caught in a mistake, back and fill as nimbly as possible. During the Iraq war, Browne said authoritatively that Saddam Hussein was dead. When he turned up alive and hiding in his "spider hole," Browne explained that she had seen Hussein underground, and that's why she thought he was dead.

Sixth, rely on a lack of information on the part of your audience. Browne has predicted that America will scrap its constitutional system and revert to the form of democracy practiced in ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks used to bring all eligible voters together in a public forum and decide issues by a show of hands. It is unclear how this approach will work in a nation of 280 million people. But Browne knows that most audience members have no knowledge of ancient Greek politics and will not question her claim. Similarly, Browne says that the Earth's "polar tilt" is responsible for dangerous climate change. I have no idea what this means, and neither does she. But a fair number of people will take the statement at face value. 

Browne likes to project a caring, motherly persona, but occasionally the mask slips. Take the time when she appeared on Larry King's show along with James Randi, the well-known skeptic who is her archnemesis. Although I am no particular fan of Randi, I couldn't help siding with him against Browne's rather obvious attempt at intimidation. This took place when Randi asked Browne to back up her oft-repeated claim that she has worked with the police to solve crimes. She responded that she was currently working with Stephen Xanthos of the Rumson, New Jersey, police. Now, some years ago, when Randi lived in New Jersey, he became involved in a dispute with Officer Xanthos of the Middletown PD (not the same town as Rumson, but close-by). Browne was obviously making an underhanded reference to that event. And she could not have been working with Xanthos in any official capacity, because Xanthos lost his job with the police long before the Larry King broadcast. Her statement was nothing but a hamfisted attempt at a veiled insult, or maybe a hint that she would bring up the Xanthos incident unless Randi backed down.

Browne likes to say that she has lived many previous lifetimes - she gives a precise number, another specific datum that can't possibly be checked - and that she will not be incarnated again, since she is now ready to move on permanently to a higher plane. This, of course, implies that she possesses vast wisdom and a rare degree of spiritual enlightenment. But would an enlightened person resort to such transparent bullying? It seems doubtful.

Nevertheless, relying on her rules of thumb and her strangely charismatic persona, Browne has made herself a superstar. People believe in her. Maybe they would be less inclined to believe if they took a hard look at one aspect of her performance that can be checked - her annual predictions.

Below are some of these predictions, culled from various sources (which I link to). The list is not a representative sample. I've left out most of the vague, ambiguous, or banal predictions that either can't be checked or could be easily foreseen by anyone. For instance, when Browne predicts minor seismic activity in New York State or California, she is not going out on much of a limb; both areas experience regular (usually minor) earthquakes. It's where Browne gets specific that her accuracy can be checked.

With that in mind, let's take a tour of some annual forecasts. First, Browne's predictions for 1998:

"The Pacific Northwest, near Seattle, will have an earthquake, around 5.4, in January."
"A very large earthquake in Madrid, about 7.8, in May."
"Volcanic eruption in Japan causes a poisonous cloud mass, around April."

None of these things happened.

"The non-stop destruction of the rain forests will release more and more harmful diseases into our atmosphere."

The destruction of the rain forests does not release diseases into the atmosphere.

"IBM creates a surprisingly good talk-savvy computer."

Didn't happen.

"Bill Clinton will be exonerated in the Paula Jones case. It will be uncovered that this was more like a conspiracy to corrupt his reputation."

He was not exonerated. He paid a large settlement, and was impeached.

"The Democrats will gain power again. Bill Clinton will again run for national office after a four-year break, and win."

The Republicans held on to Congress in 1998 (though only narrowly). Clinton cannot run for president again; there is a two-term limit. Perhaps Browne meant he would run for some other national office, such as senator. In any case, more than four years have passed, and Clinton has not run for any elective office.

"Hormonal therapy will be refined to create a new type of youth rejuvenator."

Nope.

"The triple cocktail used to treat AIDS will have a fourth ingredient added to put AIDS in full remission."

No fourth ingredient was added.

Browne's predictions for the year 2000:

"There will be extensive monitoring of the internet that will be imposed to govern and reduce indiscriminate pornography. This will be drastically different from the filtering software available now, along with harsh regulation."

It did not happen.

"There will be a definite crackdown by the Federal Government regarding frivolous lawsuits. This has been bantered around for a while, but now a definite crackdown is imposed."

No such crackdown occurred in 2000.

"NASA finally cuts back on the space program realizing that every time they send up a space vehicle they are tearing the ozone layer."

There is no evidence that space vehicles "are tearing up the ozone layer."

"Democrats will win the election with Bill Bradley, with close competition from the Reform Party."

Bill Bradley did not receive his party's nomination, let alone win the presidency. The Reform Party candidate, Pat Buchanan, came in a distant fourth with much less than 1% of the vote.

"Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston get married, but it lasts for only a short time."

Well, they did get married in 2000. And of course they recently broke up, after four years. The failure of a celebrity marriage is not too hard to foresee, I'm afraid.

"David Letterman decides to call it quits from his nightly late show after this year."

Nope. He is still doing the show.

"John Travolta has to be very careful flying his plane in February."

Here is a vague, meaningless prediction of the fortune cookie type. If Travolta had gotten into a mishap with his plane, Browne could claim success. If he didn't (and as far as I know he didn't), Browne could say she merely suggested he be "very careful."

"Courtney Cox will get pregnant this year and have a baby boy."

Cox (whose first name is actually spelled Courteney, with an e in the middle) did not give birth in 2000. She had her first baby in June, 2004. It was a girl.

Browne's predictions for 2004:

American troops will be pulled out of Iraq by June or July.

Our troops are still in Iraq.

Osama bin Laden is "dead as a doornail."

Bin Laden is believed to still be alive.

Julia Roberts's marriage will end.

She is still married.

Martha Stewart will not go to jail.

She did.

North Korea will launch nuclear weapons in 2004.

It did not.

The Pope will die.

Not in 2004. Of course, his age and obviously failing health made his imminent death easily predictable in any event.

Her predictions for the current year, 2005:

The death count after the tsunami in South East Asia will hit 417,000.

The toll was between 200,000 and 310,000, although to be fair, the full count is probably unknowable.

Stem cell research should be using umbilical chords and skin for its research instead of embryos.

I have to give her credit for possibly being right about this. Although umbilical cord stem cells had already been widely publicized, the use of skin stem cells is now being touted.

Medical surgery will start to use some kind of laser.

"Will" start? Laser surgery is nothing new. Hasn't Browne noticed that sales of eyeglasses are down?

Laser beams affecting the cockpits of aircraft are coming from other planes or satellites.

According to theWeb site reporting these predictions: "Wrong ... A New Jersey man was released on $100,000 bail Tuesday 4th January after federal authorities accused him of pointing a laser beam at two aircraft last week." (Citing a CNN story.)

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher will get married and have a baby.

Rumors are that Moore is pregnant, so this may turn out to be correct.

Britney Spears will become pregnant and her marriage will break up within a year.

Spears is pregnant. The marriage breakup is probably a safe bet.

Finally, on a radio talk show a few months ago, Browne was asked if we would ever learn what happened to the well-known atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, whose disappearance in 1995 made headlines. Browne reportedly answered that O'Hair's remains have not been found and will never be found, and the mystery will remain unsolved. Here we have a case of Browne not merely failing to foresee the future, but failing even to keep up with current events. In fact, O'Hair's body was found in 2001, buried at her Texas ranch, and her three killers are now in prison, having made a full confession.

Browne claims an accuracy rate of 87% in her forecasts. Like the other numbers she bandies about, this one appears to have been pulled out of thin air. If we discount meaningless predictions of the "sun will rise tomorrow" variety, her accuracy is far, far lower. And if we consider huge howlers like the Bill Bradley prophesy, the very idea that Browne has a special line on the future becomes laughable.

But it doesn't matter. Her fans will continue to forgive, forget, and believe. And she will go on raking in the money and smiling in the spotlight - the unsinkable Sylvia Browne.

That's one prediction you can take to the bank.

[end of original post]

-----

In the thread connected with the original post, I received an amusing comment from a Sylvia Browne fan:

Again ... why do people think just because she predicted for the year it will happen for THAT year? "The Pope Will Die" ... she NEVER said WHEN ... but he passed away in April 2005 ... just because it didn't happen in 2004 does not mean it will not happen ... DUH

To which I responded:

Everybody dies eventually. Unless there's a time limit on the prediction, it's meaningless. Isn't this obvious?

Evidently, not obvious enough!

Another striking case of a failed psychic test on Browne's part was the coal miner incident described here.