WOO WOO, HERE COMES THE CHOO CHOO!

An open-minded skeptic examines the positive side of New Age thought

 

 

 

When one speaks of New Agers, an almost immediate vision springs to mind of bubble-headed, tree-hugging,

crystal-gazing, drum-beating, trance-dancing, drug-ingesting, long-haired hippie-freak GOOFBALLS ready to

embrace any and all ludicrous fantasy, rumor, heresy, or shibboleth dreamed up by some delusional

HOPHEAD what don't have all the facts!

 

"Uh-oh! Psy-kee-del-ic bus pull inta town! Better call the sheriff! Sarah? Me. Git me the sheriff!

Mmm-hmmm. Hmmm. Hmm. Hmmm. Hello, sheriff? This here's Luke over to the gas station. We gotta

bunch New Agers tryin' to upset the peaceful rigid social order of our fair community down here askin' me to

'fill it up'! Uh-huh! Code words?!! That's what I thought! Better git over with the dobermans and fire-hoses!

And have Barney put that bullet in his gun!"

 

Now, I have been raised to avoid stereotypes, to take people one person at a time. It has been my personal

observation that those who are receptive to New Age thought are, on average, no less curious, moderate,

tolerant, or reasonable than others. True, I have run across some that are rabidly zealous in their convictions,

but they seem to occur in much the same proportion as those who give traditional Western religious thought

credence.

 

But above all, they like to be entertained, and I think this is a healthy aspect. After all, if one merely

entertains beliefs, one comes closer to the original version of the term 'open-minded' (i.e. having the ability

to consider novel ideas), and perhaps, lacking any serious investiture in such notions, can be more

dispassionately critical of them. And it is interesting to note that 'theory' and 'theater' have the same root

word: the Greek theas - to view.

 

Many who seriously examine or embrace nontraditional or non-Western spiritual and philosophical beliefs

actually dislike the term 'New Age' and are hesitant to call themselves New Agers, or believers, or seekers.

The New Age movement has many negative impressions accreted to it. Although many of the connotations of

uniform inanity are the fault of the mass media, the majority of public proponents who sought out the media

spotlight are also equally to blame, as are those proponents too eager to replace one dogma with another.

 

And so, I will use the term 'contemporary metaphysics' rather than 'New Age thought' in an attempt to

divorce the content of this eclectic social movement and its various adherents from the now calcified public

image - to distinguish the persons from the movement.

 

 

What's RIGHT with Contemporary Metaphysics?

 

Stripped of its dogma, there are positive aspects to be found. They are:

 

1) A focus on higher principles

2) An aid to personal development

3) An alternative to fatalism

4) An opportunity to discover history

 

 

A Healthy Rejection of Materialism

 

"Man, if he is a rational being, cannot live by bread alone nor be a labourer merely: he must eat and

work in view of an ideal harmony which overarches all his days, and which is realized in the way

they hang together or in some ideal issue which they have in common. Otherwise, though his

technical philosophy may call itself idealism, he is a materialist in morals: he esteems things, and

esteems himself, for mechanical uses and energies. Even sensualists - artists and pleasure lovers -

are wiser than that, for though their idealism may be desultory or corrupt, they attain something

ideal, and prize things only for their living effects, moral though perhaps fugitive. Sensation, as I

have already suggested, when we do not take it as a signal for action, but arrest and peruse what it

positively brings before us, reveals something ideal - a color, shape, or sound; and to dwell on these

presences, with no thought of their material significance, is an aesthetic or dreamful idealism. To

pass from this idealism to the knowledge of matter is a great intellectual advance, and goes with

dominion over the world; for in the practical arts the mind is adjusted to a larger object, with more

depth and potentiality in it; which is what makes people feel that the material world is real, as they

call it, and the ideal world is not. Certainly the material world is real; for the philosophers who deny

the existence of matter are like the critics who deny the existence of Homer: if there was never any

Homer there must have been a lot of other poets no less Homeric than he; and if matter does not

exist, a combination of other things exist which is just as material. But the intense reality of the

material world would not prevent it from being a dreary waste in our eyes, or even an abyss of

horror, if it brought forth no spiritual fruits. In fact it does bring forth spiritual fruits, for otherwise

we should not be here to find fault with it, and to set up our ideals over against it. Nature is material,

but not materialistic; it issues

in life, and breeds all sorts of warm passions and idle beauties." - George Santayana "Materialism

and Idealism"

 

 

 

Nice. "Nature is material, but not materialistic." And men and women are too often "materialists in morals".

Contemporary metaphysics stresses this repeatedly, if not in these words. This is a healthy counterpoint to

what seems to be the theme of modern Western society, which emphasizes and rewards our worst tendencies -

greed, apathy, and opportunism.

 

The new goddess, Science, offers wonderful insights on the natural world, as well as a useful method for

gaining valid knowledge about Nature. Her maidservant, Technology, offers many spectacular and undeniably

real material benefits. But unlike the divine beings of old, capricious and cruel though they were conceived to

be, both are like blind forces of nature - amoral. They cannot provide the morality or vision required to wisely

use them. This sphere of human affairs, this quest to cultivate the "warm passions and idle beauties" is outside

of their domain, and for a long time was the sole province of traditional religious thought. Science and

Technology had assisted their human masters to upset this state of affairs, to cast the old traditions like the

Titans into the abyss of Tartarus, yet the new pantheon is populated with faceless, inhuman creatures. The old

answers to old questions are gone, with no new answers to replace them. To their credit, contemporary

metaphysicians have, at least on an individual basis, succeeded in filling in this void. A new form of

humanism has emerged that stresses empathy, meaning, the development of creativity and intuition,

imagination: in short, a morality that recognizes that the standard unit of measurement, the quanta of all

'ethical' behavior is humanity itself. The universe may ultimately be realized to be meaningless, but we have

meaning - to each other. Is this new? Perhaps not, but it is a new emphasis, and one that may allow all of us to

survive.

 

 

The Fenris wolf was the offspring of Loki and AngerbodaŠ

 

Friends of mine have a dog, a malamute named Biggums, which is a cool dog, but a stupid one. She is

ferocious to most everyone except the immediate family and a few friends. They often keep her chained up so

that she will not terrorize visitors. When I visit Biggums, I hold out my hand for her to sniff. Biggums teases

me by grabbing my hand and biting just enough to hurt a little. "I could easily take your hand off. I know you

would miss it, for it is one of your main human attributes. But, see? I am being nice," she says to me, "Instead

I will now give you a little doctor she-wolfie lick, OK?" I take her off the chain. I pound her side and grab her

jaw. "I could easily unscrew your head off," I say to her, "but I am being nice. As your primary care masseur,

I am going to give you a vigorous rubdown now, OK?"

 

And so it goes. It is the same drama every time. This is an external example of an internal dialogue many of us

go through with ourselves, or to those parts of ourselves that are not normally under our conscious control.

Since they are not under conscious control, we sometimes fear them. Contemporary metaphysicians have

available to them many methods that allow them to access these parts - through mediation and yogic practices,

through the transformative techniques and attitudes of the "human potential" movement of humanistic

psychology, even through the metaphorical insights of dream interpretation, trance channeling, past-life

regression, and psychic readings. On an individual basis (again without the superstitious dogma behind them)

many of these methods can result in real and measurable improvements in physical and mental health. This

improvement is, in my view, a lesson in self-trust. The Fenris wolf need not be feared or chained. And this

can lead to "empowerment". Self-trust may pass into self-sufficiency.

 

This can also lead to enhanced memory and cognitive skills, which in turn improve creativity and

problem-solving abilities. I have often heard the term "back-burner processing" used to describe the

'subconscious' problem-solving phenomenon.

 

The experiences derived from these exercises may be subjective, but are nonetheless genuine experiences.

Indeed, one of the problems I often have with the logic of debunkers is the often smug, confrontational

dismissal of many so-called paranormal claims. This offhand dismissal may cause us to ignore quite

interesting, possibly valuable, insights into the mechanisms of the human psyche.

 

A good example is the curious process of past-life regression through hypnosis. Most cases have been

debunked as fraud or explained through the mechanism of cryptomnesia - the reemergence of memories whose

origins have been forgotten. In some cases, the memory has been traced to a single glance at a page in a book.

Rather than dismiss this and move on, it should be examined more carefully. Everyone would agree that the

study of, and development of, this eidetic facility would be most useful!

 

Of all the positive aspects of contemporary metaphysics, this emphasis on personal development may be the

most valuable - again, once stripped of mysticism and properly, critically studied.

 

 

Resistance is NOT futile!

 

I believe the zenith (and perhaps what would have been the downfall without the development of the Internet)

of this movement can be traced to the heavily publicized, and much ballyhooed, Harmonic Convergence of

August 1987. Here the public witnessed all the various practices and beliefs consolidated under something that

was perceived as one apocalyptic vision. And it was in this vision that the key to public distaste and dismissal

can be found: not the fervent countercultural movement of the 1960s, but rather the common thread of

millenarianism which runs deeply within Western culture.

 

And run deeply it does and with serious consequences. We often speak of Eastern mysticism as being

fatalistic, yet we Westerners seem to be blind to our own peculiar form of fatalism. This form is typically one

of foreboding doom, and the apprehensions this engenders results in a paradoxical worldview that somehow

the real world is not quite real. I am reminded of St. Augustine of Hippo - one of those who cultivated

Neoplatonic thought - who, viewing the inevitable destruction of the decaying Roman empire, came to the

conclusion that earthly things were unreal, that order was ephemeral, that resistance was futile. This attitude,

in my mind, was more responsible for the Dark Ages than any number of invading barbarian armies.

 

Humanism is an old tradition - Socrates and Plato and some of the early Church fathers were undeniably

humanist. But this was generally a reaction to the decadence of the times, and resulted in a radical ascetic

stoicism as a curative measure. It was not until the development of humanist thought in places like Renaissance

Italy that a more joyful vision was formulated. If this deterministic vision was flawed, and if individuals were

not totally powerless, then perhaps there was some worth in individual action as well. Perhaps resistance was

not futile. Here at least we see a commonality between contemporary metaphysics and secular humanism.

Contemporary metaphysics definitely cannot claim to be the originator of this philosophy, but it is one of the

themes that it embraces - the rejection of the fatalistic worldview.

 

Of course, with this fatalistic view comes the inevitable conclusion that, if there is order and meaning behind

this chaos, it is hidden. It is 'God's plan', or 'meant to be', or something which 'passeth all human

understanding'. It was esoteric. It was occult. Those who had insight into this esoteric knowledge were

granted a form of superiority, either through social standing, or economic privilege, or political power. And of

course, this privilege soon came to be seen as only natural, and finally granted through divine prejudice. The

pursuit of esoteric knowledge then becomes, not wisdom for wisdom's sake, but rather a satisfaction of envy.

 

And so we come to the last positive aspect of contemporary metaphysics: the relatively recent accessibility of

occult knowledge and a newfound ability to evaluate it against independent sources.

 

 

Ignorance is not Bliss.

 

"That the fruition of happiness is intellectual (or as perhaps we should call it, aesthetic) follows from

the comprehensive scope of that intuition in which happiness is realized, a scope which distinguishes

happiness from carnal pleasures; for although happiness, like everything else, can be experienced

only in particular moments, it is found in conceiving the total issue and ultimate fruits of life; and no

passing sensation or emotion could be enjoyed with a free mind, unless the blessing of reason and of

a sustained happiness were felt to hang over it." - George Santayana "The Genteel Tradition At Bay"

 

 

 

As I have noted in another essay, quite a large portion of contemporary metaphysics can be traced back to the

works of Madame Blavatsky. The unfortunate tendency of some is to accept this knowledge uncritically and

wholeheartedly, in the same way that Fundamentalists accept the literal truth of the Bible. Others are more

curious, and in researching the sources of these beliefs, may develop an appreciation for history and the

myriad connections of human knowledge that a more prosaic approach has killed off. Such, at least, occurred

in my case.

 

Consider the myth of Atlantis. I first heard about this from reading the works of Edgar Cayce. Intrigued by the

notion, I did further research on it and discovered Blavatsky's book "The Secret Doctrine". Doing further

research, I soon found that Blavatsky had plagiarized the material from a book written in 1882 by Ignatius

Donnelly: "Atlantis: The Antediluvian World". I eventually reached the conclusion that all of the above were

cranks, but by then my research had led me to Plato - something I would never have considered reading

before this.

 

Similar excursions have led me to discover Lao-Tzu, Nagarjuna, Chuang-Tzu, Philo of Alexandria, St.

Augustine, St. Anselm, William of Ockham, Bacon, Spinoza, Liebniz, Newton, Kant, Schopenhauer,

Nietzche, Russell, Wittgenstein, and on and on. These are people that were just memorized names and dates

before my investigations, but tracing the connections brought me a wealth of knowledge that was not enforced

upon me, but one that my own natural curiosity embraced. Would I have discovered the works of history

without this impetus? Probably, but perhaps not as soon, or with such depth. (And I would point out all this

name dropping does not make me an expert or authority. I am aware that I am only at the beginning of

education rather than its completion).

 

 

Conclusion

 

The physicist Paul Davies has written that holism and reductionism are neither antagonistic nor mutually

exclusive in our pursuit of knowledge. Reductionism is famously successful at discovering things about the

world. Really, it is a wonder that heirarchical reductionism (if you will, bottom-up thinking) works at all, in

that we can make discoveries about Nature without knowing everything about nature. Holism and intuition

(again, if you will, top-down thinking) also have a place. The likes of Einstein and Feynman, with their

rejection of formalist approaches in favor of more intuitive ones, seem to be proof of this.

 

Much can be derived from contemporary metaphysics - provided one undertakes a thorough investigation of

the field. An initial credulousness is essential for critical thinking. Without this, beliefs can never be challenged

by alternate beliefs.

 

 

Ned

 

[ About Me [ ADCs [ Channeling [ Dreams and OBEs [ Haunting Tales [ Library [ Links [ Memorials [ Message Boards [ Messages from St.Germain [ Miscellaneouis Musings [ NDEs [ Ouija Boards [ Pet ADCs [ Essays [ Space Brothers [ Reincarnation [ Rings [ Soulmates [ Spirit Photos [ Spiritual Experiences [ Survey ] The Domain ]