Re: "Lily" and religious references

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

This is my last post on the subject. 

Kirke:
>         Washing dishes, I had another thought, and I returned to look at your 
> last post to make sure that I had remembered correctly. 
>         I said: 
>   "...this person [Lily] could be a witch, a Jewish mystic, or a 
> ceremonial magician, or just an occultist drawing on what works from various 
> paradigms.  Kate herself may fit into any of these categories." 
>  you replied: 

>  "Kate may also be a hurt, confused person who has fallen into the 
> clutches of a table-tapper.  From what we can gather from the credits and 
> interviews, Lily is a real person, probably the elderly woman who appears in 
> the song and the_Rubberband Girl_ video.

>         People who have lost a loved one are often victims of "spiritualists" 
> and "mediums" who promise to contact the dead.  That this has never succeeded 
> has not stopped the "seekers" (there's one born every minute.)

>         I'll be kind and credit "Lily" with simply being deluded, rather than 
> actually evil.  She may well believe that she can contact the dead, or she 
> may not even be engaged in that hateful charade, and may only be advising 
> Kate on "protecting" herself from "psychic attack."" 

>        I guess that here you are putting together the general "spiritual" 
> content of the song with knowledge of her mother's death to suggest that 
> Lily could be a phony medium.  While I can see your line of reasoning, I do 
> not think it likely for the following reasons. 

   To call Lily a "phony medium" would require accepting that there is such
a thing as a "real medium." All mediums are, by definition, phony. 

   I'm glad that you quoted this in context. You had mentioned several
possibilities, and I mentioned another two. I did not claim that these
were the only possibilities. I really have no interest in Lily's particular
beliefs or "skills" other than the possibility that Lily may have advised
Kate on methods of dealing with other people. This is just a wild supposition,
but Lily's presumed influence may have something to do with validating or 
reinforcing Kate's reluctance to reveal anything of herself to interviewers.
She was evasive before, but the interviews for this album are amazingly
content-free.

>  In all groups there are crooks, 
> cheats and evil people.  In all groups, there are kind, sincere and 
> enlightened people.  For almost fifteen years I have read Tarot and in that 
> time i have encountered many Red-Palms who deliver little of use for a lot of 
> money.  but I have also may kind and talented readers who have offered 
> additional information, another perspective, and encouraged their friends and 
> clients to evaluate the readings as they thought best. 

   Why do you feel the need to flip cards to offer advice? Can't you do so
without the silly props? The advice that any "psychic" offers is based (in
my experience) on information gained from conversations with the person
being advised, and on a general grasp of human nature, in the same way that
any friend would offer advice. 

   Personally, I tend to believe that if several people claiming to posess
some "supernatural" power are proved frauds, then a large burden of proof
is placed on anyone else making the same claim. Call me crazy.

  (If you want to have a really amusing time, approach a "reader" who works
from photos. Ask them for a reading on a photo of one of our more obscure
serial murderers. Ed Gien might be a good one. The important point is to
never respond to any leading questions about the person, taking care to
avoid "nonverbal" responses as well. Randi did this with a picture of
Ted Bundy and two highly touted Russian "psychics" on Nova. They suggested
several things about him, but somehow managed to miss that he was either,
(1) a serial killer or (2) dead.)
 
>     I suggest that you research each individual group and make a point of 
> meeting a variety of people within those groups before you decide that they 
> are all creeps and deluded persons. 
 
   Sorry, but the burden of proof is on them. I'm not the one making claims
that would require tossing the whole of western science out the window.
If anyone succeeds in proving any paranormal phenomena, I feel quite sure
it will make the news. 

   A bit of history...my dad was a magician, a stage magician, many of our
family friends are magicians and a couple were "mentalists." I've witnessed
several "readings" by skilled mentalists, and if you didn't know the secrets
of the trade, you would believe that they had some sort of "supernatural
power." Spending your formative years in the company of skilled tricksters
can make one a capable skeptic.
   
   Another bit of history...one of my best friends many years ago was a
practicing Wiccan. She was a wonderful person and I loved her dearly. She
lived with the priestess and priest (?) of the group/coven/whatever, and
I got along just fine with the whole bunch of them. The basis of our
comfortable coexistence was a rule that neither would attempt to convert
the other. Each offered more leniency in the others home. I didn't comment
on their beliefs in their home, and they didn't comment on my lack of beliefs
in mine. Love-hounds is neither your home or mine. It is a neutral space. 

>   Of course, you risk meeting good, intelligent people that may challenge
>  your absolute paradigm :) but hey, you might get lucky and just meet creeps,
>  and then you will at least have investigated your beliefs on real human
>  subjects before accepting them entirely. 

   Goodness and intelligence are no measure of rationality. Intelligence
can often make one overly sure. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a perfect example.
His belief in the Cottingly fairy photos is a classic example of an
intelligent, learned, well-meaning person being made a perfect dupe.

>   I read your response to my post with interest.  Here are my thoughts.
> In responding to your post, I was attempting to comment on three things:
> your contention that: 

>   "There have been a number of people posting some fairly involved
> descriptions of the "ritual", and not one of them has added one iota of new
> actual information or worthwhile analysis of the *song*." 

and, 

>   "It's just "believers" taking the opportunity to post about their beliefs,
> (one od which is that Kate must *share* their belief.)" 

> finally, I was responding to your tone, which was patronizing, superior and
> generally disparaging of anyone whose beliefs were very different from yours: 

   I don't "believe" in anything. Sorry that you read it that way. How many
other newsgroups have you read? I don't believe that my tone was anything
out of the ordinary for USENET posts, and definitely not for rec.music.gaffa.

>   Another way of saying this is to say that sources are well and good
> to examine unless they offend your sensibilities by suggesting interpretations
> that disturb you.  But I say that we must all accept that some source materials
> will challenge our basic beliefs.  We just compare sources and decide which
> ones we can trust.  You are free to challenge Jean's belief that Kate is
> Wiccan.  She is free to put forth the belief, supported by textual material,
> that Kate is Wiccan.  Individually, we evaluate the evidence and decide,, no,
> yes, too little data. 

    The "textual material" that Jean was using to "prove" that Kate's Wiccan
beliefs was nothing more than the lyrics of one song and a stated general
belief in the paranormal. Pretty circular. If we accept that the song is
fiction, her entire "proof" collapses. In most interviews Kate has supported
the view that most of her songs to be considered fiction. 
  
>	Who is the zealot here?  You object that you warned "everyone that it
> would serve as a forum for a bunch of zealots." meaning our discussion of
> "Lily" and its possible sources, I presume.  Yet, no one but you is being
> extreme.  Extreme materialism is just another form of fanaticism.  Worse,
> the need to ridicule others who don't share your beliefs is a tell-tale
> sign of it. 

    What? The charge of "Materialism" has been leveled at me before, and (I
may be completely on the wrong track with this) but it seems to be one of
those terms like "secular humanism" invented by one group to bring another 
down to it's level. By positing "secular humanism" as a religion, religious
groups were able to dismiss rationalism as "just another religion." It
is not. Believing and not believing are not equal. One requires a willful
suspension of rationality and the other simply accepting the universe on
it's own terms. 

                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)