Is mass interest in New Age over?

Jackie laughlin

A few years ago I worried that bookshops would cease to stock "enlightenment" writing such was the demand for New Age/Spirituality material. I notice now that "Mind, Body, Spirit" is limited to a few declining shelves. New Age music is no onger a category in record shops. The Angel shop is now selling furniture. Healing, Reiki, angels etc. have disappeared from the adult ed. prospectus in my local school. Remember, the outbreak of born again Christianity in the late 80s. It was followed by New Age which seemed to peak at the turn of the century. It is in rapid decline and returning to an interest for a handful of devotees.

What's next?

Sapien

Jackie laughlin wrote:

A few years ago I worried that bookshops would cease to stock "enlightenment" writing such was the demand for New Age/Spirituality material. I notice now that "Mind, Body, Spirit" is limited to a few declining shelves. New Age music is no onger a category in record shops. The Angel shop is now selling furniture. Healing, Reiki, angels etc. have disappeared from the adult ed. prospectus in my local school. Remember, the outbreak of born again Christianity in the late 80s. It was followed by New Age which seemed to peak at the turn of the century. It is in rapid decline and returning to an interest for a handful of devotees.

What's next?

That's certainly not my impression. MBS shelf allocation has always fluctuated, but it still gets a decent showing in, say, Hodges-Figgis-slash-Waterstones. And the pantagruelian new Chapters on Parnell St has taken the refreshing step of dispensing with the nauseating periphrasis, and called the section "Occult" - and it's relatively large. None is nearly big enough of course, but I don't think they're shrinking.

As to New Age music, perhaps people just realised it's poo. Or whatever decent stuff previously called itself New Age now calls itself something else. I think they call it "plutoing" these days.

I don't think we have to worry until Weiser and Llewelyn start publishing chic lit.

stevenmu

I'd agree with Sapien, I don't think it's in decline at all. I think the difference is that it used to always be segregated and shoved off into a corner of it's own, or limited to specialist shops, it's now more accepted and mixes into other sections. If you have a walk around the ground floor of Easons on O'Connell St (especially near the abbey st entrance), there's 5 or 6 different sections with new age books in them. There's the obvious Religion/Spirituality section, but others too like 'alternative medicine', 'mind body spirit', 'astrology/dreams/paranormal', 'lifestyle/personal development' and so on. It looks to me like new age ideas are becoming less and less of a 'dirty topic' and are becoming something people are willing to take a look at. They're also becoming less specific and specialised and indiviaul ideas are being treated individually instead of all being lumped into a 'new age' section in the corner somewhere.

By the way, I think I heard recently that the Angel Shop has moved to larger premises

Nevyn

The majority of those books were published by a certain american publishing company and those who sought to cash in on the market that the certain american publishing company stimulated.

So there was a lot of books published and they seemed to be everywhere and they moved from the occult section of shops into the self help mind/body/spirit sections.

Currently in america the christian churchs have been publishing books and getting thier followers to by them to combat the profliteration of the new age books, inturn creating a new market.
The christian publishing houses will refuse to have thier book lines carried by retail chains that are carrying new age titles and certain occult books and put pressure on the retail chains not to contract to carry the books.
The churches can prove thier membership numbers and show the % that bought the book which equals product sold and money rahter then giving shelf space to new age books which may or may not sell.

If the new age books publishers do not have shelf space in those retail chains for certain books they will not publish them and we are already seeing a change in what is due to come out from what woudl be reguarded the largest new age publisher to what is considered more begin ie angles and faires rather then books about a more magickal you.

The non fluffly non new age books which are the occult section will still be around and tbh the world will be better for the lessening number of velvet clad spell books with sparkly writing imho.

Even if the new age fad is only a new age fad and it fades I think it will have done more good then harm.
10 years ago it was hard to get crystals and certain candles and insences
it is a lot easier today, some things are still hard to aquire and would be also a good thing.

People understand aromatherphy and the use of colour and know about personal mediation and prayer in a more detailed way.

When all the fad and fuss is gone it will have left behind a greater understanding for a lot of people about what physics, witchs, shamans, healers, mediums, divinators ect do, and there is going to be less fuss about people who do such things and they become par for the course.

Jackie laughlin

Eason's was at the front of my mind. Their "Mind, Body, Spirit" section is a small fraction of what it was a couple of years ago.

Nevyn

Eason's is really not a good bookshop, it is a barometer of what is in and what is popular and what will sell.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
You are somewhat behind the times. Eason's has responded aggressively to rivals. Waterstones changed the market. Hodges Figgis responded. Finally Eason's got their act together. It is now a very good book shop. Moreover it is the only outlet for thoughful popular journals. Sure, there are five magazines about tattooing but they also stock the New York Review of Books. They have two coffee bars for creative time wasting, while Waterstones coffee shop has closed and the shop itself is a shadow of its original self. (The "northside" branch is pretty poor.)

More to the point of this thread, the decline in "mind, body spirit" material is even more pronounced in book shops other than Easons.

Incidentally Eason's improvement coincides with a decline in this type of book. In their bad old days they jumped on the New Age market, carried a huge stock and I'm sure made a great deal of money. Nevertheless, in fairness to them, throughout the years they stocked NYRB, LRB etc. Reid's alone compares when it comes to readable journals.

aidan24326

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Healing, Reiki, angels etc. have disappeared from the adult ed. prospectus in my local school.

Good.

Jackie laughlin

Aidan,
I'm not expressing regret. What I'm trying to do here here is ask New Agers who use this part of the site if they agree that MASS interest is over.

aidan24326

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Aidan,
I'm not expressing regret. What I'm trying to do here here is ask New Agers who use this part of the site if they agree that MASS interest is over.

I still say good. Stuff like that has no place in any educational prospectus. Fine as a section in the local library and bookshop for anyone who's interested, but not in school. If people are turning away from superstitious gibberish like faith healing and 'angels' (whatever they are) that can only be a good thing imo. You are of course entitled to disagree with me and if you get something positive out of it then good for you.

Nevyn

Eason's is a chain of retail outlets you can not judge them all based on thier flagship shop on O'Connell St,
nor can you compare all shops to that one flagship shop.

Thier ordering in of books systems still sucks.

joseph dawton

There will always be an interest in esoteric and spiritual matters.

What is happening is the flooding of the market with crap books that are poorly researched and ill-concieved, this actually screws up the whole sector. It's typical corruption and decline due to over-popularity, the same thing happens with music fads - rise, peak, decline and then repeat with a new style ad-infinitum.

Once 'spirituality' has ceased to be a fad perhaps we'll see more decent books getting onto the shelves instead of rubbish, I hope so.

Jackie laughlin

Aidan,
I agree with you.

Th,
You are right. I was judging Eason's on the basis of the O'Connell St shop. Many of their other outlets are just poor but large newsagents, selling greeting cards and stationary. My point remains, however, that the stocking pattern in bookshops suggests a radical decline in interest in New Age material.

Joseph,
Has New Age ceased to be a popular - even mass - fad?

Nevyn

They can't stock it if the publishers are not publishing it plus a lot of that info is out there on the web
and more people are getting acess to it.

joseph dawton wrote:

There will always be an interest in esoteric and spiritual matters.

What is happening is the flooding of the market with crap books that are poorly researched and ill-concieved, this actually screws up the whole sector. It's typical corruption and decline due to over-popularity, the same thing happens with music fads - rise, peak, decline and then repeat with a new style ad-infinitum.

Once 'spirituality' has ceased to be a fad perhaps we'll see more decent books getting onto the shelves instead of rubbish, I hope so.

I think they are there but you have to learn to tell the chaff from the wheat and that is a learning curve and to my mind helps keep certain things hidden until a person wants to know about them and goes seeking;
which is a lesson in it's self as was seen in the great book thread in the paganism forum.

So Glad

I don't think "New Age" and spirituality is becoming invalid, I just think it's the way this world is heading at the moment. Self-enlightenment and thinking above the 5-sence reality is become a serious decision for a small number of people. Universal truth is never measured in mass appeal and I think that is what is going on here.

Also, it's probably just my point of view but I don't think enlightenment is a number one seller, or in our politician's best interests. If people started to be conscious of the lies and falsehoods that surround us, would they be inclined to work with it? Would we obligingly get up at the crack of dawn for unquestioned reasons? Such ideas and lifesyles follow an instinctive and spontanious road, which our current society does not allow.

Jackie laughlin

So Glad,
The thread was not about validity but whether or not the days of mass interest were over.

"Universal truth" sounds dangerous to my ears. Truth is always provisional and open to challenge.

I assure you that I'm not being rude or provocative but I don't understand your final paragraph.

Having written the last two paragraphs, I want to say that I'm not anxious to challenge New Age beliefs here for two reasons. Firstly, when I discovered Boards last year, I had a go at arguing and was threatened with a ban and told not to antagonise within a faith section. Secondly, it is not possible to debate in any meaningful way with a person who is faithful in the sense of being without doubt.

Nevyn

I would say for now the new age sensation is over.
This happens with many things which then become mainstream and the norm be it asain cooking adding stry fry and noodles to our diet to aromatherphy which now has us buying cented candles and plug in scent dispensers.
It will be come common place and that norm and less people will bat an eye lid at people reading those types of books or hanging dream catchers or taking time out to meditate.

So Glad wrote:

Such ideas and lifesyles follow an instinctive and spontanious road, which our current society does not allow.

I disagree there is nothing stopping you exploring yourself and your spirituality and reading and thinking for yourself except yourself.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
Do you think it is over as a mass phenomenon or not? If it becomes commonplace it will not be a fad but a part of our culture. There is little to connect aromatherapy and scented candles. I first came across "essential oils" being used to dispel food smells in the arly 70s, long before scent came to be offered as a "therapy".

6th

I think much of what was termed 'New Age' is fairly common place now. Ok so scented candles are nothing new but Fen Sui would be considered fairly new age and as Thaed said theres Dream Catchers ..... horrid things but try find a 16 year old girl who doesnt have one in her bedroom.

Jackie laughlin

Why is a "dream catcher" horrid? Anyone who can remember being 16, remembers the passion of their chosen fad and how they adorned their room.

I'd forgotten about Feng Sui. (Is my spelling correct?) It's just not common currency these days.

The impression I'm getting here is that it's over as a mass interest. It was a fad and will now return to the preserve of a few believers.

6th

Then you are getting the wrong impression.

Its like you are suggestion that before the fad 10 people were interested, then it became a fad and 100 joined in, then it passed and it went back to just the same 10 people again?

More and more people now concider the affects of the likes of feng sui when going about their lives.

Jackie laughlin

Why is a "dream catcher" horrid?

Nevyn

The idea behind a dream catcher is that bad or negative dream sare caught in the web and can be swept away with out every disturbing the person sleeping in the area they are set over.

To some people this is acceptible to other's it is harmfull to interfer with or by pass the dreaming process from what ever what point of view dreams being; the processing of the day, the filter from the concious to the sub conciousand vice versa or a place in which people travel conciously, or acess the astral
or get communications signs ro portends.

Sometimes we need to face the negative things, the fears and bad dreams
all of which the dreamcatcher would prevent.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
I know this is off topic and you know that I find New Age beliefs fanciful but this time you have to be pulling my leg! Is there really a design for a dream catcher which a person could make and believe that it would be effective? I thought that dream catchers in young people's rooms were charming adolescent notions which brought some "poetry" into their lives.

Nevyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher_(Native_American)
http://www.dream-catchers.org/

Actully the dreamcatcher is orginally native american medicine/magic,
not so called 'new age' at all.

And well to some people transubstantiation is a fanciful notion.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
Thank you for the refs.

Do you believe in dreamcatchers?

The world is full of fanciful notions. Most are harmless. Some get a person "through the night". Some are dangerous, e.g. frightening, allow charlatans to exploit etc. I was taken by the suggestion that something as daft as a dreamcatcher could be described as horrid.

I guess I tend to lump quite a lot of belief under "New Age". I became concerned about it only when it occurred to me that if it kept growing in popularity at the rate it was doing so just a few years ago, it just might overwhelm the gains of the Enlightenment. However, that danger came to nothing. I can smile at how wrong I was to confuse a fad with an intellectual movement.

Shiminay

I would imagine the "horrid" reference made by 6th in relation to Dream Catchers ties in slightly with your own point about people taking fanciful notions. I have several friends with dream catchers hanging on their walls, I never really thought (until now) about asking them why they have them. I would suspect that there's a reasonable percentage of people who have them as decoration (see his 16 year old girl comment) rather than for their intended purpose (I'd even go so far to say there's probably a reasonable amount of people who have no idea what they are or where they've come from). But of course, I'm not trying to speak for 6th, just offering an opinion.

I wouldn't have one myself, let the dreams good and bad in, they're there for a reason That said, I'm nearly 29 and I have only remembered 1 dream in my life, so I guess I'm not too worried about it. Do I believe in them? I'll put it this way, I don't not believe in them if that makes sense.

6th

Kharn wrote:

I would imagine the "horrid" reference made by 6th in relation to Dream Catchers ties in slightly with your own point about people taking fanciful notions. I have several friends with dream catchers hanging on their walls, I never really thought (until now) about asking them why they have them. I would suspect that there's a reasonable percentage of people who have them as decoration (see his 16 year old girl comment) rather than for their intended purpose (I'd even go so far to say there's probably a reasonable amount of people who have no idea what they are or where they've come from). But of course, I'm not trying to speak for 6th, just offering an opinion.

Well its the same opinion as mine anyway

I called them horrid as having worked in a DIY store with a 'home' section I saw lots a gawdy, sparkly, shinny dreamcatchers that where just for decoration. To me alot of them are tacky .. like glittery crucifix with fluffy edging.

Jackie laughlin

Kharn,
You're a sceptic when it comes to dreamcatchers. I can't even manage scepticism on this one. The native Americans who are responsible, are they related to the Hopis of ear candle fame? Come on, they're having a laugh, giving out old Indian guff to see how gullible a paleskin can be.

Shiminay

Honestly Jackie, I've never really looked into it, it hasn't been something that's interested me. I'm just saying (of this and other similarly unquantifiable items/practices) I respect other people's beliefs enough to not discount it off hand until such a time as I've spent some time researching it myself enough to draw my own conclusion. Whatever about people's faith etc, respect to your fellow man is something we should all strive towards.

You may be right and dream catchers may be a load of balls, but what if you're wrong?

Jackie laughlin

Kharn,
When first I became concerned about the popularity of New Age (I'm using that as a handy catch-all label.) beliefs, I spent a considerable amount of time on research. I won't burden you with a list of topics or "ologies" but I found nothing credible. Like you I strive not to be dismissive. However, extreme relativism is a problem today. Foolishness is often tolerated on the grounds that "everyone is entitled to their opinion". This means that the views of the drunk holding court at the bar and those of the well read person are equal. In other words "tolerance" can be bent to mean repression and "respect" can be bent to mean censorship. I'm not of course accusing you of this. What I mean is that informed people have an obligation to argue.

Nevyn

Many things are subjective, how we percieve and interact with the universe is also subjective.
Only you can sense and interact with the universe as your senses and your processes percieve it.
If you don't get heavy metal music or jazz for that matter fair enough but that does not give you the right to insult the people that do or belittle them.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Do you believe in dreamcatchers?

I can see how they may be used as a tool of a magical practioner.
I don't think all the ones we see around are 'active'.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The world is full of fanciful notions. Most are harmless. Some get a person "through the night". Some are dangerous, e.g. frightening, allow charlatans to exploit etc. I was taken by the suggestion that something as daft as a dreamcatcher could be described as horrid.

There are those that consider transubstantiation, that catholics are canibals and eat the flesh of thier god to be horrid, any differing religions and clutures have differnt taboos or cultural takes on objects and practices.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I became concerned about it only when it occurred to me that if it kept growing in popularity at the rate it was doing so just a few years ago, it just might overwhelm the gains of the Enlightenment. However, that danger came to nothing. I can smile at how wrong I was to confuse a fad with an intellectual movement.

Your concern, your bias and your conculsion and if it 'gets you through the night' fair enough and helps you make sense of your subjective universe then I am glad you found such a coping mechanism.

As for hoppi ear candling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_candling
honestly that I don't see the point of; again unless it is being used as a focus by an engertic or magical practioner.
They would be just a candle in the hands of a non practioner the same way a wand would be just wood.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I won't burden you with a list of topics or "ologies" but I found nothing credible.

Just because you found them not credible to you in how your subjective universe functions does not mean no one else will find then credible esp when back uped with thier own personal experiences.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What I mean is that informed people have an obligation to argue.

Well why should informed people from the other side argue with you if your mind is made up and you consider them ill informed or delusional ? Why cast pearls before swine, argue about colour with the blind.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
You are being grossly unfair in attempting to characterise me as having a closed mind. I'm insatiably curious and fequently change my views when compelled by evidence or argument.

Believers are not amenable to argument, whereas truly religious people are constantly beset by doubt.

Are you really of the view all statements deserve to be treated equally?

Shiminay

You've made a fair point Jackie in questioning if all statements deserve to be treated equally, on the other side of that though, would you think it unfair to say that all statements at least deserve to be listened to and let the listener draw their own conclusion?

I find it curious that you appear to have thought we were going to be over-run by the fluffy new-agers and their crazy ways! Personally I'm a "take it or leave it" sort of person, why worry about other people when we have enough to be worrying about ourselves However, as pointed out earlier, these things have a way of peaking and settling down to a more sustainable level of interest and popularity and seeping into the mass conciousness that is humanity. Has any of what you've read and researched interested you or is it just that you found it too hard to believe (in)?

Nevyn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Th,
You are being grossly unfair in attempting to characterise me as having a closed mind. I'm insatiably curious and fequently change my views when compelled by evidence or argument.

There is no point trying to argue about a person's subjective personal experiences.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Believers are not amenable to argument, whereas truly religious people are constantly beset by doubt.

People who have faith and deep personal beliefs do not doubt that often and I certainly would think less of someone who took advantage of someone who was having a crisis of faith even to try argue with them to change thier point of view that is prolysiting and the rules ofthis forum and the site make this a banning offence..

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Are you really of the view all statements deserve to be treated equally?

I think all people deserve to be treated equally and thier right to believe what they want should be respected as long as they are not harming others no matter how off the wall and how far up thier own holes they seem to have thier heads.

Jackie laughlin

Th,
I was just talking to you. Are you really threatening to ban me?!! Just ask me to quit the thread and I will do so.

I've had personal crises. I know about personal crises. I know too that cults prey on people in crisis. No, my view is that someone in such a situation needs love and support.

My general point was that if all views carry equal weight, the pursuit of truth, wisdom, enlightenment has to be abandoned. Indeed even the comraderie of intelligent conversation is gone.

If I choose to mention a subjective experience, I expect it to be discussed to see if it has any general meaning or significance.

All of the thoughtful and devout Catholics of my acquaintance have been beset by doubt.

You do not treat someone with respect by ignoring their beliefs; you patronise them and may in some cases become an accessory to their enslavement or exploitation. Egalitarians argue about and for equality.

Kharn,
Yes, all statements must be heard. They are essential if reaching a conclusion is to have any meaning.

I can laugh now that I thought that "New Agers" were a political and philisophical threat but at the time it was everywhere. As I said, bookshops were inundated, every local school's adult education programme included Reiki and many had angel courses, every newsagent's noticeboard carried ads. offering bizarre therapies for ludicrous fees, people were abandoning conversation with notions such as "getting in touch with inner X", astrologers were appearinging on TV with astronomers. It seems to have passed now but there are other threats. There remains a tendency to seek easy answers.

For a time some of what I read fascinated but I found nothing convincing. This fuelled my worries about the direction society was taking. It seemed that masses of people were giving up on reason, discourse, curiosity, research etc. and returning to magic. I wondered why. As I said, for the most part it's over now, I think, but new fads are taking shape. Why do I worry at all? Well, because life, people and society interest me. I care very deeply about where we are going.

Nevyn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Th,
I was just talking to you. Are you really threatening to ban me?!! Just ask me to quit the thread and I will do so.

No I was not, I was making a point; you are the one who took it personally.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My general point was that if all views carry equal weight, the pursuit of truth, wisdom, enlightenment has to be abandoned. Indeed even the comraderie of intelligent conversation is gone.

Truth is a many faceted jewel so is deity and you can only search for your truth and your enlightenment, trying to prescribe that truth for other's is futile.

There are many intelligent conversations that might be had but there has to be common ground to begin with and saying that someones belifs mean they have abandoned truth, wisdom, enlightenment" is not a place to start as it means you do not respect the other person and thier beliefs.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If I choose to mention a subjective experience,
I expect it to be discussed to see if it has any general meaning or significance.

Put there are experiences which are mysteries and it can take a while for a person to process them and garner the understanding from them at a later date and at times they are the only one who can do that.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

All of the thoughtful and devout Catholics of my acquaintance have been beset by doubt.

Well that would be thier own spiritual journey and everyone has thier dark nights of the soul but most that I would know who have a strong faith they may question why but thier beliefs in the core tentants of thier faith and thier belief in the love of thier god/s holds firm.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I can laugh now that I thought that "New Agers" were a political and philisophical threat but at the time it was everywhere.

A threat ? People looking and searching for answers beyond what has only been on offer from the traditional churches are a threat ?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

As I said, bookshops were inundated, every local school's adult education programme included Reiki and many had angel courses, every newsagent's noticeboard carried ads. offering bizarre therapies for ludicrous fees, people were abandoning conversation with notions such as "getting in touch with inner X", astrologers were appearinging on TV with astronomers.

There have always been astrologers including the infamous John Dee and Russel grant who was on teh tv back in the early 80s when breakfast telly was first launched so really that is not that new.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It seems to have passed now but there are other threats.

oh really ? what threats and threats to what exactly ?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There remains a tendency to seek easy answers.

There are always people like that and most likely there always will be.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

For a time some of what I read fascinated but I found nothing convincing.

So you could not conseive that any one else would ?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

This fuelled my worries about the direction society was taking. It seemed that masses of people were giving up on reason, discourse, curiosity, research etc. and returning to magic.

I would certialy disagree seeking an alternative spiritual path or a one that ha magic in it or those that are magical but not spiritual in the conventional sense takes discourse with others, curiostiry and research and a reasoning pondering mind.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I wondered why.

Many things were not explored or advailible in this countrydue to the place held by the christain chruches. Ireland never had the 60s and 70s like other countries did and is playing catch up in a lot of ways.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

As I said, for the most part it's over now, I think, but new fads are taking shape. Why do I worry at all? Well, because life, people and society interest me. I care very deeply about where we are going.

Personally I would be more worried about the evangelical churches that are gaining a hold in this country then Mary buying a pack of angel cards or doing rekiki or aromatherphy.

Sapien

Jackie laughlin wrote:

For a time some of what I read fascinated but I found nothing convincing. This fuelled my worries about the direction society was taking. It seemed that masses of people were giving up on reason, discourse, curiosity, research etc. and returning to magic. I wondered why. As I said, for the most part it's over now, I think, but new fads are taking shape. Why do I worry at all? Well, because life, people and society interest me. I care very deeply about where we are going.

As to where "we" are going, there is scarcely a single "New Age" movement out there, the existence of which doesn't form an encouraging vector from the religious hegemony from which European society is emerging. However irrational these "fads" may seem, they can be no less rational than inherited memoplexes (love that word) like the Abrahamic faiths; and whatever else they suggest about the intellectual dispositions of their adherents, New Age-ism demonstrates a growing curiosity, activeness, openness and vitality in modern spirituality that pickles me tink.

Jackie laughlin

I love the word "hyperbole".

stevenmu

Jackie, your tone throughout this thread has become more and more disrespectful of the beliefs, opinions and thoughts of others. If you wish to continue posting on this forum you must respect the beliefs and ideas that other people present. Some slack has been cut in the interest of what is otherwise a very interesting discussion, but that will not continue.

Talliesin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I was just talking to you. Are you really threatening to ban me?!! Just ask me to quit the thread and I will do so.

I am.

You campaigned to have this forum censored. I am not going to have any forum trolled because someone dislikes its existence.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I love the word "hyperbole".

Good for you. Go off to the English or the Linguistics and Etymology forum if you want to discuss it.

As to your attempt at an argument, cooking was a publishing fad a few years ago and has died out. Are we to take it that nobody cooks anymore?

I think there was a fad-within-a-trend about the vaguely labelled "New Age". I don't think it has died out much. Personally I think the "New Age Movement" is a big pile of rubbish with the only benefit that when it found a new philosophy to plunder it sometimes made things useful to others easier to find in shops (albeit generally more expensive and of less quality than they were before) so I wouldn't be at all upset if it did die out, but I find it hard to find evidence to support that in the real world.

What would upset me would be if someone who agreed with me that it is a big pile of rubbish was able to combine that view with a lack of respect for others' right to believe whatever they believe and somehow had the power to censor.

Nevyn

http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm

The "New Age" that does not exist:

Major confusion about the New Age has been generated by academics, counter-cult groups, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians and traditional Muslim groups, etc.
Some examples are:
Many of the above groups have dismissed Tasawwuf (Sufiism) as a New Age cult. In reality, Sufiism has historically been an established mystical movement within Islam, which has always existing in a state of tension with the more legalistic divisions within Islam. It has no connection with the New Age.

Some conservative Christians believe that a massive, underground, highly coordinated New Age organization exists that is infiltrating government, media, schools and churches. No such entity exists.

Some conservative Christians do not differentiate among the Occult, Satanism, Wicca, other Neopagan religions. Many seem to regard all as forms of Satanism who perform horrendous criminal acts on children. Others view The New Age, Neopagan religions, Tarot card reading, rune readings, channeling, work with crystal energy, etc. as merely recruiting programs for Satanism.

In fact, the Occult, Satanism, Neo-pagan religions are very different phenomena, and essentially unrelated. Dr. Carl Raschke, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver describes New Age practices as the spiritual version of AIDS; it destroys the ability of people to cope and function." He describes it as "essentially, the marketing end of the political packaging of occultism...a breeding ground for a new American form of fascism."

Jackie laughlin

How come I get abused for a gentle leg pull when Sapien loves "memoplexes"?

Look, I've been trying to avoid saying anything that could be seen as antagonistic for three reasons. Firstly, I don't feel antagonistic. Secondly, I'm aware that people here can be very sensitive. Thirdly, the conversation interested me.

Let me say a few things. Yes, my attitude to New Age (Forgive me, it's just a handy term for me.) has changed. I was deeply antagonistic when I feared it was becoming akin to an absorbing ideology for the mass of people.

In general I think that the word "respect" is frequently used to censor and stifle discussion. It is, for example, a very common tactic among some Islamic thinkers/leaders. I oppose extreme relativism, where everyone's view is treated equally. ("Repressive tolerance") I'm reminded of Salman Rushdie's argument (I haven't the ref. to hand.) that liberal democracy is tough: one must expect - even demand - that one's VIEWS will be treated with disrespect.

I left this corner of Boards when it was made clear to me that challenging discussion is permitted only in areas like philosophy, politics, news, green issues, history etc. I don't like this rule but I don't want to get blacklisted, banned, silenced because there are great discussions on the site and I like to take part; it's good for my education. I returned here to ask a specific question which was at the root of my changed attitude. Discussion broadened and I took part but VERY carefully.

stevenmu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

How come I get abused for a gentle leg pull when Sapien loves "memoplexes"?

By itself, I would have seen the "hyperbole" remark as just a witty reply (and I did laugh when I read it ). I am more concerned by the dismissive tone on many of your posts where you seem to just dismiss ideas as foolish or fancifull, bizzare, ridiculous, ludicrous etc, or in this case hyperbole.

In general I think that the word "respect" is frequently used to censor and stifle discussion.

This is true, but it's also true that dismissal and ridicule of ideas is frequently used to censor and stifle discussion. I would certainly hate to stifle any discussion (within reason of course), and there is a delicate balance between imposing too much "respect" and allowing ridicule, which is why I would tend to warn people as opposed to banning first.

I returned here to ask a specific question which was at the root of my changed attitude. Discussion broadened and I took part but VERY carefully.

It was a very good question, and has led to a very interesting discussion, which I hope can continue now uninterrupted.

Talliesin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I left this corner of Boards when it was made clear to me that challenging discussion is permitted only in areas like philosophy, politics, news, green issues, history etc.

I'm sorry, but you can't first justify your mis-using the phrase "New Age" because "it's just a handy term for me" and then claim that you are being prevented from engaging in "challenging discussion".

In order to engage in challenging discussion you need to make challenging points clearly. In order to make challenging points clearly you need to make points clearly. In order to make points clearly you have to either use words correctly or, if it is truly necessary to set definitions to how you are arguing, to do so.

Your use of "New Age" is so ill-defined as to be absolutely meaningless or at the very least not related to "New Age".

This means you make meaningless points. Meaningless points can never be clear and can never challenge.

Jackie laughlin

The heading here is "spirituality". I considered some form of that word to refer to the the group of topics/beliefs to which I refer and which are represented in this section of Boards. Would "alternative" or "complementary" be acceptable or the now familiar in bookshops, "mind, body, spirit"? I needed a collective term. I don't know why "new age" is so problematic.

The "hyperbole" post was an attempt at wit, a response to a witty post.

I do find these beliefs and others outside the remit of this area of Boards fanciful, bizarre or ridiculous. In most cases this is an informed judgement. In other words, I've put varying amounts of effort into studying them. There are a lot of them and I have other topics which interest me more.

I don't use it very often but ridicule has a place in debate. For example many moderates have used ridicule constructively in making argument in favour of openness and free speech against some - perhaps most - strands of Islam.

I seem to have missed a post by Th. in which he mentions Christian cults. These became a problem in the 80s as family members became obsessed and avoided, ostracised or bored their loved ones away. Similar obsessions happened in the 90s with MBS (mind, body, spirit) and people became alienated from family and friends. I've not heard of such a case in quite a while. This change partly determined my view that mass interest had passed.

Shiminay

If I may wade in again with a few thoughts...

Jackie, I still think the idea that you actually felt threatened by the thoughts that people were starting to explore other avenues of spirituality/faith/religion is astonishing. Evolution of both body and spirit and civilisation only happens when people start asking questions.

Jackie laughlin

Kharn,
I didn't feel personally threatened. I'm quite prepared to admit that I got the extent of mass interest completely wrong and I feel foolish for having allowed so much anecdotal evidence and the seeming ubiquity (I like that one!) of MBS in public cloud my judgement. Having said that, if masses of people had become permanently involved, it would have been a socio political problem of great proportions. (No, I'm not trying to be provocative. That wasn't for you, Kharn.) I see MBS as a way of avoiding questions.

Nevyn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

. Having said that, if masses of people had become permanently involved, it would have been a socio political problem of great proportions.

Why ?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I see MBS as a way of avoiding questions.

How so ?

Jackie laughlin

Western liberal democracy is one of the enlightenment's finest outcomes. (Yes, I'm well aware of Athens and the Roman republic.) We tend to take it for granted but as more and more people opt out of public controversy 9politics) and turn in on themselves, ultimately our way of life will suffer. MBS is one such retreat. Its decline in popularity doesn't mean the problem is averted. Other routes to privacy have become popular.

Like religion most MBS requires a decision to believe. At its best such a decision leaves the believer troubled by doubt. In most cases, however, it means a closing down of reason and provides a refuge in a sealed world of certainty.

I could get banned for saying this because someone will claim that they are offended. (Have a look at the Butterflies and Wheels site. "Offence" has made an appearance in their developing glossary.)

Shiminay

Now you're talking rubbish Jackie.

How can you say that politics and faith/spirituality/whatever are even remotely tied in to one another??? ALL religion requires a closing down of reason to some extent. Faith lets us get past that.

So your arguement makes no sense - are you saying that only aethiests will take an interest in politics? That's what it sounds like... Didn't you also previously say that faith and religion *should* leave all of it's followers with some doubt? So you're now saying this like it's a bad thing? Should all religion be abandoned? Sounds to me like that's what you're saying.

You're clutching at straws here Jackie.