The Latin prefix para means beside or beyond. Like the word supernatural, paranormal refers to any phenomenon that eludes explanation through normal science or conventional wisdom.
Paranormal can be a misleading term because what is ‘normal’ is open to debate and subject to change.
At what precise point, for instance, does intuition or insight become as ESP or clairvoyance?
Funnily enough, the US courts still provide an option for placing the right hand on the Bible while taking oath—and the Bible is a book that invites believers to enjoy eternal rest in the paranormal realm of heaven.
Image: Wikipedia
Likewise, more recent versions of the American psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-x) accept religious beliefs that include the paranormal, providing the religion is well established and actively practiced within a given culture. Individual beliefs, however, are far more suspect, which speaks volumes about the psychiatric worldview.
Traditional religious persons tend to be wary of the paranormal, saying that it deals with magic,evilspirits, the occult, divination and demonic realms. Heaven, on the other hand, is said to be a faith-based concept denoting God‘s realm. So traditionalists tend to use the word supernatural instead of paranormal, as if that resolves all ambiguity about what is good and not good in the uncharted world of the spirit.
Many who have had unusual experiences or who believe they have psi abilities probably do not report these for fear of repercussions. They would not want to be ridiculed, bullied, harassed, stigmatized, marginalized or perhaps, worse, rough-handled by a medical establishment that leans toward what C. G. Jung called “medical materialism.”¹
Vallisca Paranormal Journalism: billnwmsu / Will Murphy
We can only wonder just how many genuine paranormal encounters go unreported. But one thing seems pretty clear: The data is questionable.
Social credibilitybias, misreporting and unreliable statistics compel us to ask whether ‘normal’ and ‘paranormal’ are relative instead of absolute categories. Just as postmoderns deconstruct the idea of the ‘natural,’² the difference between normal and paranormal is relative to cultures and subcultures.
Cultural biases can be subtle but also pervasive. Bias often goes unrecognized because we are blind to our prejudices, expectations and limitations. And despite what many will say on either side of the fence, this happens with both kinds of believers—believers in the paranormal and believers in the normal sciences.³
In most schools of psychology, paranoia is a disorder where one holds a belief that one is being persecuted, the victim of a conspiracy or in some kind of danger when, in fact, they are not.
Excessive anxiety or fear are thought to be two contributing factors to paranoia but there could be additional spiritual and transpersonal factors which mainstream psychiatry almost entirely overlooks.¹
Among analytical psychologists, paranoia is believed to be sometimes accompanied with inflation, in which the ego overly identifies with archetypal contents.
Within pop culture and the media, the term might not always be used correctly because some hold naïve views about or blatantly conceal shady personal and political agendas.²
Some pundits have been saying that we live in a “culture of fear,” especially during the Reagan and Bush eras. Apparently a wealthy and powerful few manipulate the media to try to generate just enough social paranoia to justify political acts (like war) or to boost sales for products that alleviate fear-related issues.
These critics maintain that the rich and powerful do not want to create too much fear. If they did, society might become paralyzed or chaotic, which definitely would not advance political agendas and corporate profits.
Reality, however, is often far more complex and open-ended than tidy conspiracy theories, making this view seem simplistic (but not unworthy of consideration).
Turn to 2017 and the persistent reality of global violence. The “culture of fear” theme is quickly losing ground to more recent tropes like Fake News, Climate Deniers, and Russian Spying. These are the latest media bad guys. And in a few years, there will undoubtedly be a new trendy list of public villains for popular news outlets to explore and discuss ad nauseam.
Sometimes actual cases of paranoia develop in highly intelligent, prominent personalities.
For instance, the Austria–Hungary (now Czech Republic) born mathematician, logician and philosopher Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) starved himself to death in later years. Fearing that his food would be poisoned, Gödel wouldn’t eat anything that his wife didn’t prepare for him. After his wife was hospitalized for six months, he refused to eat and simply wasted away to die.
Kurt Godel via Flickr
In 1978 the New Wave band Devo released a popular song “Too Much Paranoia.” And in the realm of the paranormal, some believers in extraterrestrial mind control wear tin foil hats to apparently block evil aliens from controlling people through ESP.
To outside observers, wearing tin foil hats seems a pretty clear case of irrational behavior arising from paranoia.³
³ Not to say that ETs necessarily do not exist. Probably nobody knows for sure. But to think that tin foil would protect a person against meddling ETs with advanced technologies seems absurd.
Toaster is in lurve: Cle0patra “Toaster has a new friend – Ice, they’ve been inseparable since she arrived” via Flickr
Panpsychism is the belief that all things possess consciousness. Some extend this belief to say that the type of consciousness matches the complexity of a thing’s organization.
The idea goes back to ancient times and has appeared around the globe. But it was rejected by a Church that adhered to a speculative, Aristotelian view of matter and which made a sharp distinction between organic and inorganic substances.¹
The Church’s teaching that human beings, alone, have souls complicated things, especially during times when disagreeing with or merely peeving powerful religious authoritarians could lead to ruin—that is, loss of property, torture and death.
After the Church, the philosophy of logical positivism helped to further squash panpsychism in the mid-20th century.
But it never went away.
Interest in panpsychism reemerged in academic philosophy, the New Age, science fiction and quantum physics. Also, it never really left Eastern religions, especially within Korean, Japanese and Chinese beliefs.
Image via Google Images CC
Today, with the rise of robotics, computing and artificial intelligence, a whole new vista of debate has opened up.
A contemporary panpsychist might say that an electrical circuit or machine generates a quality of consciousness in keeping with the degree of that object’s organizational complexity.
Also, the way a thing is organized could affect its consciousness. Not just the degree.
Sound nuts?
Well, let’s remember that human consciousness is demonstrably affected by our bodies and especially the electrochemical pulses coursing through the brain, nervous system and organs. So maybe the panpsychic view is not too far-fetched.
Additional critiques of panpsychism maintain that it is doubtful machines have souls, which many say is an essential component to life.
This might seem like the most compelling critique.
But can we be certain that God does not instill certain machines with souls… if not now, perhaps in the future?
St. Jerome produced a 4th-century Latin edition of the Bible, known as the Vulgate, that became the Catholic Church’s official translation – Wikipedia
Also, as our human bodies are increasingly transformed by science and technology even before conception – with in vitro fertilization – where do we draw the line between mankind and machine?
Traditional theology classes would probably not ponder these kinds of questions in a mature way.
It seems they are more geared toward generating revenue, defining intellectual boundaries and inculcating organizational obedience within a financially free clergy.²
But the questions raised by panpsychism are not going away. And soon they will have to be taken seriously.
² From the perspective of depth psychology, emotionally challenged individuals often want something to cling on to. It might be hoards of money, status, or just something old and familiar. I say “financially free” because clergy who fit the bill are not burdened with financial concerns. How many working people around the world can claim that?
Most of us have probably heard the term multiverse. But what is it?
Well, that might depend on who you are and how you look at things.
In the most general sense, the multiverse is a hypothesis that describes many possible universes that may or may not interpenetrate one another. But as we shall see, there are a few twists to its meaning.
A Little History
As early as 1923 H. G. Wells wrote the novel Men Like Gods, portraying a multiverse theory and a “paratime” machine.¹
In 1952, the Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger said his equations seemed to depict different histories that are “not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously.”²
In the 1960s and 70s the idea of parallel universes hit the radar with paranormal writers like Jane Roberts and science fiction TV shows like Star Trek TOS. This cosmological innovation never went away.
Since then, more philosophers and scientists have championed and critiqued the notion that our universe exists with others.
Stephen Hawking may not believe in God but he believes in a multiverse. And in sci-fi and fantasy, the idea grows with a vengeance.³
Myth, Philosophy and Science
Depending on how one interprets the meaning of the word, the multiverse arguably crops up in Celtic myths about the otherworld. For instance, in Pagan Ireland the afterlife region of sidh closely resembles earthly life. And every November 1st, during the festival of Samhain, spirits from both worlds apparently mingle.4
Level 2 multiverse (Photo: Wikipedia)
In philosophy, Leibniz (1646-1716) argues that God conceived of many possible worlds but only created the best of all possible worlds.5
In New Age literature Jane Roberts‘ Seth Books advance the notion that parallel universes not only exist, but interact.
For Roberts, the soul observes a person’s experiences in many universes. So on a higher level, the oversoul learns from different lives in the multiverse.
Roberts also says we can be influenced by our other selves in parallel universes. For example, The EDM musician in universe A may connect with her other self as an astronaut in universe B, along with her vocation as a psychological time traveler in universe C. Her mind-expanding experiences as an astronaut (B) and time traveler (C) could influence her musical creativity in A.6
The possibilities of a multiverse are enjoyable to think about. But we have no way to empirically demonstrate our beliefs and suppositions. This is one of the greatest critiques of multiverse theory. Fascinating speculation, yes. But the multiverse is not scientific because, detractors say, we cannot prove it.7
Image via Wikipedia
What’s Missing in Mainstream Theories?
My critique of mainstream multiverse theory – as we usually find it through places like Flipboard and Feedly – is that it rarely accounts for heavenly and hellish dimensions.
Heaven, hell and additional in-between realms, I would argue, play a huge role in our day-to-day lives and should figure prominently in multiverse theory.
We might call these oft overlooked aspects vertical instead of the more commonly described horizontal dimensions. After all, most spiritually aware people say that they feel heaven above and hell, below.
An Analogy
To help bring this back down to Earth, consider an analogy:
Some scientists, oblivious to genuine religious or spiritual experience, seem like ants trying to map out the world from the height of a few millimeters. The ant can’t see what the human being sees.
The ant may know about anthills, but it knows little about mountain peaks; river valleys; streams; oceans; the rich colors of the Earth’s topography; waves on water; blue skies, sun and cloud; moon and stars; Andromeda…
So an ant’s theory is pretty ant-like. Not at all like a human being would comprehend the world through the five senses.
Image via Wikipedia
From this analogy, we can say that those with genuine spiritual sensibilities take the observable universe as a bit of an anthill. There’s a lot more to consider. And that’s why so many current cosmologies fall short.
Hope Springs Eternal
There is hope, however. Recent trends like String and M-Theories seem to be heading in the right direction. These theories point to higher dimensions that interact with dimensions found in simpler multiverse theories.
So different interpretations for the word multiverse might someday coalesce. Instead of merely being the stuff of science geeks and sci-fi fans, the idea of the multiverse may soon reap practical benefits.8
² I’m linking to my highlighting and notes at Diigo so more relevant info that didn’t make this entry is easily found. https://www.diigo.com/user/earthpages
³ Some feel that sci-fi and fantasy is nature’s way of acclimatizing us to new ideas and cosmologies that initially seem too far-fetched, especially with ETs and UFOs. For examples in sci-fi, fantasy, TV and movies, see:
Level II Multiverse: every disk is a bubble universe. Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, with distinct physical constants that are different from our universe. Our universe is just one of the bubbles. (Photo: Wikipedia)
4 Wikipedia outlines more examples of the multiverse in myth and religion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(religion). But these examples interpret the meaning of multiverse differently than, say, a contemporary physicist would. The difference, without getting too complicated, is that a physicist’s definition is usually closer to the idea of parallel universes. The other interpretation is about layers of reality (or higher and lower dimensions) that saints and mystics can consciously experience in the here and now. See, for instance, the Hindu idea of lokas.
5 The satirist Voltaire (1694-1778) lampooned Leibniz’s view in Candide, with a witty critique of apathy and clerical hypocrisy.
6 (a) Some wonder if David Bowie really was The Man Who Fell To Earth. Could simultaneous experiences in other places have informed his work here?
(b) In the 1980s something strange happened with my Dual turntable, a popular brand of record players. It was a long time ago and, to be honest, I can’t remember exactly. But this is a true story: In one instant the machine was revolving at 33 rpm and the next instant the dial was at 45 rpm, without my touching it. It just instantly changed, as if a TV channel had been changed from universe A to universe B. There was no visible acceleration or audible change in sound. Just an immediate, uninterrupted speed change. Next, I looked at the Dual logo and, in my youthful open-mindedness, got the unnerving feeling that the universe was trying to teach me something.
Admittedly it sounds a bit far-fetched. But in an instant I interpreted these events as a kind of holistic teaching. Today, I’m not so sure. Possibly I changed the turntable speed with my hand and, for some reason, momentarily blanked out, forgetting that I had changed it. Then noticing the Dual logo, I might have put these events together into some kind of paranormal teaching about parallel universes. Maybe my brain misfired from fatigue or something else. That’s my skeptical side. But it’s more accurate to say that I don’t what happened. I remember feeling temorarily unsettled afterward, like the underpinnings of all that I believed in were pulled away. Luckily, it was a one-time experience! 🙂
7 Adherents of multiverse belief might note we can’t prove the idea of love, either. And it’s pretty hard to imagine a world without love.
8 From Wikipedia:
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within string theory and its higher-dimensional extension, M-theory.
These theories require the presence of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D3-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support other universes. This is unlike the universes in the quantum multiverse, but both concepts can operate at the same time.
The perception of Paganism has changed over the years. Pagans remain a religious minority in most places, and we find different opinions about Paganism as a spiritual path. In advanced countries it is rare and probably illegal to publicly disrespect or, especially, harass someone because they are Pagans or NeoPagans.
But it wasn’t always this way.
The term pagan has roots in 4th century early Christianity. The early Christians took a dim view of Pagans. At best, believers in many gods or those outside the Christian fold were stock to be converted to the Christian understanding of the One True God. At worst, they were victims of harsh insults and cruel persecution.
This disturbing trend came to a fever pitch in the Middle Ages. Many so-called heretics and witches suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of their Christian “saviors” (irony intended).
The Latin term paganismus was first used in the 4th century, by early Christian community, in reference to populations of the Roman world who worshipped many deities, either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population or else because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ).¹
In Medieval and early modern times the Christian Church sanctioned successive waves of barbaric torture and killing under the guise of purifying individual souls – and the Earth – of Satan’s demons, which included Pagan deities. Catholics weren’t the only sadistic psychopaths doing this. Protestants burnt people alive too—something many Catholic-detractors downplay or simply don’t know about.
But it didn’t begin in the Middle Ages. The mistrust of Paganism stems back to Biblical times. Competing with the term pagan is polytheism, which the Hellenistic Jew Philo had been using since the 1st century to denote those who didn’t believe in Jewish monotheism. And if we browse through the Christian Old Testament, it’s not too hard to see what unspeakable violence and plunder took place in the name of God before the coming of Christ.
Today the Catholic Church has softened its stand on Paganism, along with most non-Christian religions. Not accepting all aspects of non-Catholic faiths, Catholics do profess to accept all that is from God within non-Catholic belief and practice. There is some truth among the ‘shadows’ of error, is how the Catholic Catechism tends to put it.
Sounds good to some. However, Catholics remain cautious when dealing with Pagan religions. They claim that Pagan beliefs contain elements of error.
Funnily enough, many Protestants – especially Fundamentalists – believe that Catholicism has lapsed into Paganism. After all, Catholics believe in intercession and venerate the saints (to include the Virgin Mary, the Queen of all saints). And not only Catholics. Orthodox believers too.
Panagia Church Virgin Mary Iconography, Orthodox via MaxPixel
Most contemporary scholars cleverly conceal or make ambiguous any negative connotations around the word Paganism. For better or for worse, universities are bastions of political correctness. And to not fall in line can cost you your job. Nevertheless, some scholars still denounce Pagan belief, especially those on the payroll of Christian fundamentalist publishers. They see it as their holy duty to “set the record straight.”
Like most, perhaps, all aspects of life, scholarship, does not enjoy a magical banner of objectivity. The misguided belief in objectivity arguably is a kind of religious folly. But the folly is not about religion, as in Erasmus‘ day. The folly is the belief that human research and analysis should be elevated to a lofty position that, in reality, is often undeserved.²
Peter Gay traces the development of contemporary Paganism to the European Enlightenment and Renaissance, where new ideas and fresh ways of seeing things apparently enabled mankind to deconstruct its dogmatic Christian heritage.³ By way of contrast, Dinesh D’Souza argues that Christianity, itself, is the core of all that is good in contemporary culture (for him, American society).4
Wikipedia outlines what the term Paganism means today:
However, there often exists a distinction or separation between some… [groups] over numerous issues such as; the importance of accurate orthopraxy according to ancient sources available, the use and concept of magic, which calendar to use and which holidays to observe, as well as the use of the term pagan itself.
Many of the “revivals”, Wicca and Neo-druidism in particular, have their roots in 19th century Romanticism and retain noticeable elements of occultism or theosophy that were current then, setting them apart from historical rural (paganus) folk religion. Most modern pagans, however, believe in the divine character of the natural world and paganism is often described as an “Earth religion.”5
Some scholars point out similarities between aspects of Christianity and Paganism. What matters is how we interpret these similarities.
Here are three examples in Catholicism:
With the Eucharistic Celebration, Catholicism claims to have finalized and transformed the previously barbaric acts of sacrifice and atonement
Many Catholic (and Christian) feast days fall on the dates of older Pagan festivals—for example, Saturnalia and Christmas
Catholics say their religion transforms and ennobles all that is good in the annals of mankind. So the Vatican collects priceless Pagan statues because these represent artistic ‘greatness.’ God must have been present, they argue, because the statues were so superbly conceived and executed.
On this last point, some non-Catholics take this as rank idolatry, greed and hypocrisy masked as piety. For the critics, it is false to see God working through non-Christian pathways. The Catholic replies that the heavenly Jesus exists in all of time so can influence historical periods that took place – or some might say that are taking place – before his earthly manifestation.
This is interesting. So many perceive Catholics as narrow-minded, brainwashed traditionalists. But considering Einstein’s empirically supported ideas about the relativity of space and time, we can safely say that Catholic theology was centuries ahead on this one.6
² Academics often use special words and speech patterns to try, arguably in part, to legitimize their brand of thinking. But when we look closer or just think for ourselves, we often see how arrogant, small and uninspiring this can be. (The overuse of the word “magisterial” comes to mind). Recently reading one sociological piece, I had to wade through miles of gobbledygook to get to the main points. And these were so obvious and pedantic, it made me wonder why the author was such a big shot in the first place.
4 D’Souza is a great writer. He reminds me of some hip Indian intellectuals and artists whom I met in India. But he simplifies and misrepresents Canada so terribly, I can only wonder what blunders and omissions he commits in other areas. Reading his stuff and watching his films makes me feel like I’m looking at a very bright 15-year-old’s connect the dots picture. The artwork is well above average for a 15-year-old. But an adult gets the sense that too many dots are left out. In short, entertaining but be sure to fact check. See https://www.amazon.ca/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017
Karl Christian Friedrich Krause, Lithography published in: Die reine d.i. allgemeine Lebenlehre und Philosophie der Geschichte, Göttingen 1843 (Photo: Wikipedia)
Panentheism is a religious studies term coined in 1828 by the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832).
Today, it belongs within the umbrella term, pantheism. However, Krause’s concept is more specific.
Panentheism refers to the belief in an eternal God grounded in but also greater than creation. Put simply, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Krause is an interesting character. Largely overlooked by Western philosophy, his predominantly mystical thought was overshadowed by Schelling,¹ Fichte, and Kant, who were his professors. He was also passed over by academe, like a lot of bright people with a bit too much insight and individuality.²
His view of society reminds me of Émile Durkheim’s but with an added mystical flair. For Krause, the universe is an organic whole. And the more that individuals and groups fall into line with that whole, the better society functions.
Krause endeavoured to reconcile the ideas of a God known by faith or conscience and the world as known to sense. God, intuitively known by conscience, is not a personality (which implies limitations), but an all-inclusive essence (Wesen), which contains the universe within itself. This system he called panentheism, a combination of monotheism and pantheism.
Ideal society results from the widening of the organic operation of this principle from the individual man to small groups of men, and finally to mankind as a whole.³
Schelling 1775 – 1854 (Photo: Wikipedia)
Variations of this view are found in Taoism and Hinduism, as well as the works of Spinoza and Hegel. But we should be wary of oversimplifying. Important differences are sometimes glossed over by educators, religious authors and New Age enthusiasts.
That may sell sugar coated self-help books and fool gullible students. But it’s far from the truth.4
—
¹ Schelling is considered by some to have coined the term unconscious and his saying, “Nature is visible Spirit; Spirit is invisible Nature” would make a perfect inspirational quote for social media.
² I’m coming to think that, with a few notable exceptions, the brightest people in the humanities do something better than teach at a university. The more dull-witted stay behind, churning out their conventional, politically correct or trendy tracts mostly designed to get funding and ensure financial security. Nothing wrong with that. But nothing spectacular either.
³ https://www.diigo.com/user/earthpages This is a link to highlighting (notes) I made. I thought it would be a good idea to link to this so additional info that didn’t make this article could be seen. My Diigo page also has the original source.
4 Unless one adheres to the ‘truth’ of selling no matter what b.s. you’re spinning.
Panenhenism is a religious studies term coined by the WW-II British undercover agent cum Oxford scholar R. C. Zaehner (1913-1974).¹
A minor point for many, perhaps, but panenhenism differs from the more popular pantheism.
Panenhenism refers to the belief that the universe is a unified whole, but without any reference to God.
Zaehner’s term prefigures the semiotic and postmodern agenda to deconstruct words like “God” and what they connote for different individuals and groups—e.g. women, invisible, visible, silent and outspoken minorities.
Zaehner, himself, became a practicing Catholic and emphasized a distinction between what he called monist and theistic perspectives on mysticism.
The monist, he claims, adheres mostly to Asian religions (with some exceptions), where the self is identified with the godhead. The theist, on the other hand, believes that the self is forever individual and has some kind of relationship with God.
To illustrate the latter perspective Zaehner begins his book, Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (1961), by referring to the Jewish writer, Martin Buber. Buber makes a similar distinction with his famous “I – Thou” thesis.
Image via Abe Books
Zaehner was pretty popular when I was in India during the 1980s. By stating his own personal biases at the outset of his study, he is miles ahead of other scholars who conceal their religious convictions while trying to appear ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ when dealing with world religions.
Later, while doing my doctorate in Ottawa, Canada during the 1990s, the notion of stating one’s biases at the outset of a study was a talking point at colloquia.²
² Basically, an informal exchange of ideas among those who cared to attend. Not all professors did. Some seemed to prefer volunteering for basic mail sorting chores in the mail room.
Here is where I’m starting to share with all of you my love for Italy, my country of origin. Here is where you can find more about a little country loved by many, ITALY
¹ See 
