Is mass interest in New Age over?

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.

Sapien

Jackie laughlin wrote:

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.

In my experience, people interested in "MBS" have a very different attitude towards their spirituality than the religious do. There is generally less of an emphasis on faith and defeating doubt, and more of an attitude of embracing new ideas and allowing one's perspectives to evolve over time.

In reality, of course, there are lazy thinkers and there are active thinkers. In the various spiritual persuasions contemptuously categorised under "New Age" one will frequently find seekers of the easy answer and the quick fix, but far less so than in religion. Religion is difficult for the active thinker, and the lazy thinker misses out on most of what modern spiritualities have to offer.

Perhaps you haven't read the better books or spoken to the more interesting people.

And I didn't get the "hyperbole" thing.

solas

I just gleaned quickly through the thread and first of all I think that the ' new age' spirituality, for want of a better term, was nothing more than a very viable product and over the last ten years had a very dominant place in the market.
Anyone in marketing can attest to the fact that all products/services have a life span, whether its 200 years or two years, ultimately after reaching a point of maturation, saturation occurs which is followed by decline. I think new age has moved into the latter stages.
I'm not opposed to the concept, I just consider spirituality and religiosity a personal thing and not something that should be bought and sold.
It will always have a place in society and just maybe it will return to the realms of the sacred.

On a further point, a few comments you made earlier were discussed in a program on bbc2 tonight as part of 'The Trap' series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)
Its very interesting and I highly recommend you try and catch the final episode next week.

episode one wrote:

As the 1960s became the 1970s, the theories of Laing and the models of Nash began to converge, producing a widespread popular belief that the state (a surrogate family) was purely and simply a mechanism of social control which calculatedly kept power out of the hands of the public. Curtis shows that it was this belief that allowed the theories of Hayek to look credible, and underpinned the free-market beliefs of Margaret Thatcher, who sincerely believed that by dismantling as much of the British state as possible — and placing former national institutions into the hands of public shareholders — a form of social equilibrium would be reached. This was a return to Nash's work, in which he proved mathematically that if everyone was pursuing their own interests, a stable yet perpetually dynamic society could result.

The episode ends with the suggestion that this mathematically modelled society is run on data — performance targets, quotas, statistics — and that it is these figures combined with the exaggerated belief in human selfishness that has created "a cage" for Western humans. The precise nature of the "cage" is to be discussed in the next episode.

Tonights epsiode was called "The Lonely Robot" and covered precisely the issue of how economics has become the democracy which had been supposed could achieve the goal of social equilibrium.

It started out by touching on the experiments which finalised humanity's purpose as a pre disposed gentic reproduction system, nothing more than a machine and how such findings led to the development of modern psychologies, where quick fixes and simple reprogramming methods could solve everything from our happiness to global politics, (the free market), the basis of western liberal democracy.

As the program evolved, we begin to understand that the theory has a few major flaws and the realisation that humans are not so easily rationalised comes to the surface.
The human traits, for which numerical formulae had been developed to neutralise (in an effort to attain world peace, wealth and happiness) were beginning to break out of 'the cage' and the free market politics of the 20th century now hanging in the balance. People began searching for something else, for many it was a sense of belonging.

It is very clear, humanity has other needs.
Coincidently, the consumer market of spiritual ware seems to be reflecting the same principle, 'Western (political/economical/spiritual/)Enlightenment seems to be nothing more than a dubious recipe for material greed and social apathy.


[edit: found video of 'The Trap: what happened to our dream of freedom' on youtube. Not sure if both episodes are available yet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOEB05_3-p0 ]

Nevyn

In this country it very well might seem that way, but as I have said before we have been playing catch up in a number of ways over the last 10 years as we did not have the freedom of the 60s and 70s like other countries did.


http://paganpedia.mind-n-magick.com/wiki/index.php?title=New_Age

History

The name New Age was popularized by the American mass media during the late 1980s, to describe the alternative spiritual subculture interested in such things as meditation, channelling, reincarnation, crystals, psychic experience, holistic health, environmentalism, and various “unsolved mysteries” such as UFOs, Earth mysteries and Crop circles. Typical activities of this subculture include participation in study or meditation groups, attendance at lectures and fairs; the purchase of books, music, and other products such as crystals or incense; patronage of fortune-tellers, healers and spiritual counselors.
Quartz crystals are believed to have mystical properties by some New Age followers; see Crystal power
Enlarge
Quartz crystals are believed to have mystical properties by some New Age followers; see Crystal power

The New Age subculture already existed in the 1970s, and arguably continued themes from the 1960s counterculture. Earlier generations would have recognized some, but not all, of the New Age's constituent elements under the practices of Spiritualism, Theosophy, or some forms of New Thought / the Metaphysical movement, all of which date back to the nineteenth century, as does alternative health. These movements in turn have roots in Transcendentalism, Mesmerism, Swedenborgianism, and various earlier Western esoteric or occult traditions, such as the Hermetic arts of astrology, magic, alchemy, and cabbala.

In the English-speaking world, we should make special mention of study groups devoted to American trance-diagnostician Edgar Cayce, who inspired many of today's channelers. The British neo-Theosophist Alice Bailey's writings may have supplied the term New Age (or New Era). The Findhorn Foundation, an early New Age intentional community in northern Scotland founded in 1962 played a significant role. The movement in Russia has been heavily influenced by the legacy of Nicholas Roerich and Helena Roerich, who taught in the Theosophical tradition. Another former Theosophist, Rudolf Steiner and his anthroposophical movement, is a major influence, especially upon German-speaking New Agers. In Brazil, followers of Spiritualist writer Allan Kardec blend with the Africanized folk traditions of Candomblé and Umbanda.

Key moments in raising public awareness of this subculture include the publication of Linda Goodman's best selling astrology books Sun Signs (1968) and Love Signs (1978), the Harmonic Convergence organized by Jose Arguelles in Sedona, Arizona in 1987; and the wave of interest in the broadcast of Shirley MacLaine's television mini-series Out on a Limb (also 1987). This was an autobiographical account of her mid-life spiritual exploration. Also influential are the claims of channelers such as Jane Roberts (Seth) and J.Z. Knight (Ramtha), as well as revealed writings such as A Course In Miracles (Helen Schucman), The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield), Mutant Message Down Under (Marlo Morgan), and Conversations with God (Neale Donald Walsch).

The question of which contemporary cultural elements ought to be included under the name of "New Age" is quite vexed. New Age channelers have many points of similarity with Spiritualist mediums. Many spiritual movements, such as neo-paganism and transpersonal psychology partially overlap with it. Many groups prefer to distance themselves from the possible negative connotations of the "New Age" name such as the media hoopla, commercialism, and perhaps hucksterism. For example, key individuals in the New Thought movement, such as Ernest Holmes, have focused on a more scientific approach and do not share New Age beliefs in reincarnation, magic, or channeling. Major attempts to present the New Age as a values-based sociopolitical movement included Mark Satin's New Age Politics (orig. 1976), Theodore Roszak's Person/Planet (1978), and Marilyn Ferguson's Aquarian Conspiracy (1980).

The New Age is a wide menu of ideas and activities, from which participants in the subculture select their own preferred streams to patronise or identify with.

solas

nice topic, interesting discussion. good to see the forum open for business.

hope your all keepin well

Talliesin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I don't know why "new age" is so problematic.

It's a perfectly fine term if you're referring to either the concept of a New Age (or rather one of the several such concepts) or the New Age Movement.

Your using the phrase in a way defined by your own personal idiolect is useless in communicating with the 6billion people in the world who do not share your idiolect. That is to say, it's no good using it in a conversation with anyone who isn't you.

You can use it "your way" in your own diary, but there's no point using it here. I must outgrabe your tulgey tuntum. It's frumious. No one will be able to
gimble.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Similar obsessions happened in the 90s with MBS (mind, body, spirit) and people became alienated from family and friends.

"Mind, Body and Spirit" is a marketing term for a demographic with an interest in various aspects of psychology, spirituality, parapsychology, alternative medicine, religion and conventional health & fitness.

Interest in each of these has waxed and waned considerably since literacy began, but never really died out.

joseph dawton

I'd agree, spirituality will always be of interest as it is an important part of ourselves. We might go off our food for a bit or go through a phase and some people naturally are more interested in it than others but we all need to eat or else we die. I think the same is true of the spirit but it is a lot harder to 'see' spiritual health than physical health!

The idea of a new more spiritual era (predicted by many sources) is interesting and very possible, however I think that it would arise out of painful lessons, I doubt we have the sense to get there without experiencing the pain of near annihilation first, which is a great pity.

www.electricpublications.com
www.gaiafield.net

dreamingoak

it will be a dreadful shame if spirituality per se is 'a fad thats over' as anything that legitimises seeking and the search for truth and meaning, that allows an individual to raise their eyes from their feet to the horizon, and to question and wonder is a good and empowering thing. each person should feel safe and supported in their right to seek for expansion in their physical emotional mental and spiritual world.
In discussion with a Chinese university professor the other day, he said that the Chinese receive many awards for knowledge, as they are trained to learn what they are given and never question, but never receive any awards for new discoveries. they know their feet very well, but never look to the horizon. whereas here in ireland we are trained in individual free thought, but are rubbish at learning by rote. It is of course, the middle road that we need, namaste.

mossieh

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I love the word "hyperbole".

I really wish boards had a rep system. +5000000 for you.