Ghosts?!

[The Blue Lotus]

I went to the funeral of a friend; she was a Pagan priestess. She had known she was about to die (she had a terminal illness), and I had (with her invitation) purchased a plane ticket to go see her once more before she went. A couple of days before my visit, she passed.

The funeral was held in author Diana Paxson's home. There were a bunch of cats running around in the house, and I was following them around trying to pet them (I'm a huge Cat person), but there was a vast crowd and the cats were skittish, so none of them would let me touch them.

As the facilitator was going through the ritual, and all these people were packed like sardines into one room (I mean we were all pressed up against each other on every side), I was bawling. The facilitator asked for a moment of silence and invited our deceased friend to commune with us or send us energy/messages- I can't recall exactly what was said, but the person was asked to make contact if she wished to. Complete silence fell across the packed room. Immediately, I felt one of those cats push its way between my ankles. (It was so crowded that I couldn't even look down to see it.)

I don't attempt to analyze what that was, aside from the fact that I know my friend was responsible. She had been a very grandmotherly-type lady, and I'm sure would have wanted to comfort me if she saw me standing there bawling.

I know skeptics will say that this was a complete coincidence, but it wasn't.

See I have no problem with that because it brings you comfort. Had you said "the light blew out causing glass to spray every where and I know it was my friend letting us know she was still with us..." I'd have had a very dif point of view. I guess I am a hypocrite? lol maybe it is because I tend to think that since we are nothing more than energy that transfers I can't understand being scared of something that can not harm you??

 

[Chilari]

As long as science treats the paranormal studies like its step-child, those events will remain uncovered.

I don't think science does treat paranormal stuff like that, or rather, if it does it's entirely justified. Have you heard of James Randi? He's a performer who does magic tricks, and also a sceptic. He has offered $1m to anyone who can, under appropriate scientific testing conditions, prove something paranormal, supernatural, or otherwise considered maligned by science, including psychics, magicians, homeopathy and other disciplines. Over a thousand people have tried. None have succeeded. Several of those people blamed negative energy caused by too many sceptics (which just makes me laugh), or testing conditions designed to disprove them, but if these things were real they should stand up under scientific scrutiny and not fall down at a simple hurdle like a double blind trial (in the case of homeopathy) or having polystyrene beads around a book where someone claims to be able to turn the page using psychic powers but in fact is just blowing gently on it.

So yes, scientists have tried to encourage those who claim to have psychic powers, commune with the dead, cure people with water to prove it, with a prize up for grabs if they can do so of $1m, but they've failed. Now, you might say that the scientific method cannot be used to test the paranormal because it is beyond the known laws of the universe, and to a degree I can accept that that is entirely possible. One cannot prove the existence of radio waves when one is only using a really big listening horn to measure it. But the scientific method is what we have at the moment. And if paranormalists wish to prove that what they are doing is real, then they need to develop the technology to prove it - and that includes ruling out all other posibilities. They need to develop hypotheses which explain the phenomena without contradicting with what we already know, which can be tested and which have predictive capabilities; or else they need to create a new method which can be used by all scientific disciplines whereby the paranormal can be appropriately tested but which will also reach the same conclusions as the current scientific method regarding that which we already know, like gravity.

 

[Kit]

Part of the problem with that is that even people who believe- and even people who regularly use "supernatural" (by whatever name) techniques- often don't know for sure why they work or what the rules/parameters are. We may have theories, but we don't know.

One common theory is that it's all PERFECTLY scientific, not "magic" or "supernatural" at all, but we just don't understand those branches of science yet.

The people who are most skilled/experienced are usually the people *least* interested in trying to prove things for skeptics, or to get money or fame out of it.

 

[ShortHair]

My opinion is that we can't rule out the possibility of ghosts. I've never seen one personally (that I knew of), but I've heard so many stories that I can't see how they are simply figments.

Almost everywhere there are stories of someone encountering a mysterious figure and learning a fact about it. Only later does that someone find out that the figure was a ghost and that the fact learned is true. We can't explain it with our limited understanding of the universe, and yet it happens. We can't explain how bees fly, either, but they do.

One other point. Those who disbelieve can be as rigid in their thinking as those who believe. The "experts" who debunk ghosts (or UFOs or whatever) reject evidence that they can't quantify. They equate "I can't explain it" with "Nobody can explain it," which is arrogance.

 

[Chilari]

We can't explain how bees fly, either, but they do.

Actually we can. The people who first examined bee flight and concluded that it was impossible assumed lift was generated only when the wings went down, but the way the wings twist on the way back up also generates lift. Can't go looking for source right now because I'm at work. In any case, not knowing why something works doesn't mean it works by supernatural means.

One other point. Those who disbelieve can be as rigid in their thinking as those who believe. The "experts" who debunk ghosts (or UFOs or whatever) reject evidence that they can't quantify. They equate "I can't explain it" with "Nobody can explain it," which is arrogance.

Perhaps some do, but I don't believe that is the attitude in general. For most sceptics, true sceptics, "I don't know" means just that. What I particularly dislike (and I'm certainly not alone in this) is when those who hold certain beliefs (and this crops up in a wide range of beliefs about the supernatural) say "you can't explain it therefore my explanation is right." It might be that the person tasked with providing a scientific explanation doesn't have all the information - particularly when told of a supernatural event as an anecdote. A friend of mine insists there's a ghost living in her parents' house, and their cat won't go into this one room where the ghost is meant to reside, which even in the heat of summer is colder than the rest of the house. Now I don't know about her house, but there's a room in my house which is colder. It used to be the pantry, and has stone walls instead of brick, pretty thick walls too. It's south facing but even in summer is the coolest room in the house when the heating is switched off. Similarly, there is another room in the house none of my cats have ever gone in, right next to that colder room. They have access to that room (unlike the upstairs rooms) but will not enter it voluntarily. The room is not haunted, the cats just don't like it. I suspect they just don't like the smell, something too subtle for our noses. Sometimes things have explanations which depend on data people are not privy to.

In general I think ghosts come about as a result of a combination of factors: impressionable minds, stories they hear, the desire for attention, unexplained phemonena and the tendency for the human mind, when under pressure, to act irrationally. It is comforting to believe the dead watch over us; or alternatively to believe that the dead can visit justice on those who escape it via conventional means. There is also a sense among several cultures that we are connected to the past in some way. This is also comforting. The idea that those who built and lived in the houses and castles and who appear in the histories we read might still be around to tell us what their lives were really like is a very attractive prospect to any historian. For me personally it's the idea of time travel that I can't let go of. I know it's physically impossible, at the very least as far as travelling backwards beyond the point at which time travel is developed is concerned, but I frequently imagine scenarios in which I travel back in time and meet people like Aristotle or Augustus. People want a link to the past. The idea of ghosts is one of those links.

I once made up that I'd seen a UFO when I was in primary school. I thought I had seen something, a bright pink thing in the sky, and insisted it was an alien spacecraft. It was probably a sunspot in my vision from having looked at bright green foliage in the sunshine. But mostly I wanted attention. I wasn't one of the popular kids but mostly played with one of the kids who was more popular. He got all the attention and I was ignored. So I made something out of nothing and claimed a UFO sighting.

For the record, tales of ghosts have existed at least 2500 years. The ancient Greeks believed the ghosts of those who died young or violently would linger near their graves and could be bound using written curses to visit supernatural evil upon people. And they believed it worked. They also believed the whole world was made up of combinations of earth, air, fire and water (including one of the foremost smart people of the day, Aristotle*), but science has moved on from that.

*not that Aristotle wasn't occasionally wrong - he thought the ruler of a hive of bees was a king, for example, in defiance of his contemporaries, mostly because he was sexist and couldn't believe a female could rule and liked to draw parallels with human society using the king of the bees as an exmaple - but on many things he was ahead of his time.

 

[Shockley]

I once made up that I'd seen a UFO when I was in primary school. I thought I had seen something, a bright pink thing in the sky, and insisted it was an alien spacecraft. It was probably a sunspot in my vision from having looked at bright green foliage in the sunshine. But mostly I wanted attention. I wasn't one of the popular kids but mostly played with one of the kids who was more popular. He got all the attention and I was ignored. So I made something out of nothing and claimed a UFO sighting.

This reminds me of my mother in all facets of life. In every situation she had a natural drive to be the center of attention, and at some points that took the form of 'sensing' ghosts.

She would tell a story that involved a broom flying out of the attic and 'sweeping' her down some stairs and onto a pile of broken glass. She claimed that she saw a green woman holding the broom and attacking her, and after that she refused to go into the house ever again (which my father had just purchased for her as a wedding present).

Everyone else that was there is of the opinion that she hit the broom (which was sitting there) and tumbled over to the stairs, breaking a vase as she went down.

Given the choice, I find the latter more legitimate.

I wouldn't say that the desire for attention explains every paranormal phenomenon, but I think it explains a lot. It definitely covers Sylvia Brown, Uri Gellar, James Van Praagh, the Amityville people and the 'Haunting in Connecticut' people (both of them were involve with Ed and Lorraine Warren, who have been accused by the ghost writer* (pun absolutely intended) of the Haunting in Connecticut book of making things up to make the stories believable) and a good portion of the people who say they confronted vast, international conspiracies.

*The ghost writer for the Haunting in Connecticut book (which is called 'Dark Place') is named Ray Garton, and he's one of the most intelligent, humorous people I've ever heard interviewed. He was quick to refer to the Haunting in Connecticut events as the low point career, before reminding the interviewer that he was also responsible for the Goodburger novelization.

 

[PrincessaMiranda]

I really enjoy hearing about other peoples beliefs, the stuff that people think quietly in their heads. I didnt realize religion would be used in this thread. My apologies.

 

[Sheilawisz]

No problem Miranda, this thread is interesting!!

We just need to keep in mind the Mythic Scribes Guidelines for discussing Religion, as I said in a previous post.

 

[Chilari]

Sorry I didn't mean for it to stray so far from the designated topic. Wouldn't want to bring religion into this as it can get heated.

As far as ghosts in stories are concerned, I certainly wouldn't avoid them just because I don't believe in them. I think ghosts can make a great plot element. There was one story I was writing a year or so ago (currently on hold; I wasn't happy with the protagonist) I had a group of people who had magically bound themselves to ghosts to gain the strength and some supernatural powers of the ghosts, which the ghosts agreed to because it meant they could take revenge on the descendants of those who killed them and leave the site of the battle where they died. The Ghostbound are one of my favourite ideas - they were a lot of fun because there was the conflict of there being two personalities with two different aims and two different skillsets in one body. They were sinister and more powerful than the normal mortal characters, and made great characters. Shame I messed up with the protagonist. I might use them again if I find a story suited to them.

 

[JCFarnham]

Sorry I didn't mean for it to stray so far from the designated topic. Wouldn't want to bring religion into this as it can get heated.

As far as ghosts in stories are concerned, I certainly wouldn't avoid them just because I don't believe in them. I think ghosts can make a great plot element. There was one story I was writing a year or so ago (currently on hold; I wasn't happy with the protagonist) I had a group of people who had magically bound themselves to ghosts to gain the strength and some supernatural powers of the ghosts, which the ghosts agreed to because it meant they could take revenge on the descendants of those who killed them and leave the site of the battle where they died. The Ghostbound are one of my favourite ideas - they were a lot of fun because there was the conflict of there being two personalities with two different aims and two different skillsets in one body. They were sinister and more powerful than the normal mortal characters, and made great characters. Shame I messed up with the protagonist. I might use them again if I find a story suited to them.

Sounds to me like you found your antagonists before your protagonists. It might take days, weeks, or months before the right person for the job appears, but that's often the way ideas work isn't it? Alternatively, can you make them fit into an already existing idea? (for the sake of this aside staying short I'd like to reference this blog post for you: On Creativity and Writing: Making the Most of Ideas, part I)


I tend to call myself spiritual (though that raises more questions than I can answer). Not because I believe in anything in particular, but mostly because I can't disprove any such beliefs. Make sense? For example, I think I'm right in saying we are far from understanding the trick to sentience. Neurobiologists try, have been for a while and are getting closer every day, but with out conclusive proof on exactly how the brain and all those other parts come together so perfectly to form a thinking "us"... well, lets just say to keep to the conservation of energy, all that which makes us up has to go some where. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of it ALL disappearing into where ever you wish to come to rest and nothing existing from then on.

There's something special there, in human intelligence, don't you think? Apes for example exhibit a great deal of the processing power necessary for coming to similar conclusions about day-to-day life as we might in their place, but still they are that one little step away from being capable of the abstract thought that gave us, eg, language. Why?

The paranormal to me has always been "the stuff science can't explain yet". I think the only way I can quantify saying "I'm spiritual" is by adding; I'm open to the truth, whatever that truth may be, but not terribly open to the idea of organisations who throughout history consistantly caused violence because of their beliefs not matching up with others.

 

[Stuart John Evison]

To call ghosts and other similar phenomenon "the supernatural" is not a term I have ever been happy with, it's like describing the ocean as wet, it really tells you absolutely nothing. Similarly as a person who casts the runes it always annoys me when someone asks me to "tell their fortune", can they not see that if that was truly possible I would be one of the richest men in the world.
It has never bothered me that some people scoff or even become violently agitated when I bring out the stones in company for belief has always been a matter of faith not proof, the church could never exist without it. More than once I have stunned a questioner who has tried to catch me out by asking the same question twice and on such occasions have been accused of slight of hand because they have through chance drawn the same rune stones from the bag. My degree is in Statistics and it always freaks me out when it happens since I understand the odds of it happening.
When asked for proof of authenticity I can only ever give unverifiable anecdote in answer.
During the second world war my grandmother saw my uncle, her eldest son, standing at the top of the stairs covered in blood and told the whole family that he had been killed. The "regret to inform you" telegram arrived a month later. When I was due to be born she had a dream where my mother was drowning in her own blood and consequently insisted she was there when my mother gave birth. She was a skilled natural midwife, you can't give birth to fourteen children only half of them surviving past infancy without learning a thing or two, the doctor later said that if she had not been there to take charge both my mother and I would have died.
For my own part I used to read the tarot cards, when I was young and naive, I read them for my best friend and saw an absolute disaster lying in wait for him. Not understanding what we were seeing it was laughed away and dismissed. Within weeks he and his girlfriend were killed on his motorbike after just waving farewell and he actually breathed his last as I cradled his shattered body by the side of the road. It is my biggest regret in life that if I had understood the card reading properly maybe he would still be alive, needless to say I put the cards away and have not touched them since. The runestones I use now are a far more benign way of reading fate since they are more about telling people where they are at, rather than where they might end up.
You can believe or not it does not worry me one way or the other but I am convinced, no one and no amount of sceptic argument will convince me that the tangible gift I inherited from my grandmother does not exist. Her "ghost" is over my shoulder as I write and she's telling me I'm wasting my time doing it. You will believe or not, as your nature dictates, faith though moves mountains and is this not what the "White Christ" taught us all.