Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00266)

Brigitte, you wrote:

"I also am indeed interested to see Daniel show the results of tests 
done on private individuals under modern laboratory conditions where 
the person in question:

"1)Materializes and de-materializes objects as Blavatsky is claimed 
to have done. 

"2) Modern laboratory testings where an individual (person) has 
dissapeared and re-appeared at will (without any equipment)."

Although much may be learned from parapsychological testing in a 
laboratory setting, we should not ignore or hastily dismiss non-
experimental evidence and historical evidence of the paranormal.

Stephen E. Braude has written a very thorough account of the 
importance and significance of such data in his book THE LIMITS OF 
INFLUENCE (2nd ed.). Especially important is his chapter titled "The 
Importance of Non-Experimental Evidence". The interested student who 
is not close minded should carefully read, re-read and study Dr. 
Braude's observations in this chapter. Also relevant to what 
Brigitte has brought up are the additional chapters in Braude's book:

Chapter 2: Physical Mediumship: Two Classic Cases
Chapter 3: Physical Mediumship: Miscellaneous Mediums
Chapter 4: Apparitions

Brigitte, you also wrote:

"The drug influence Steve has clearly shown in case of the Ooton 
Liatto episode could mean that the strange phenomena Olcott 
reported which were not obviously the result of drug use., the drug 
could have been impairing his ability to make sound judgements."

I will try to comment on Steve's remarks sometime this weekend. In 
the meantime, I would simply say that although Steve has raised 
interesting possibilities, I do not believe he "has clearly shown" 
that "drug use" is the most probable explanation of the Ooton Liatto 
account or of other experiences Olcott is reported to have had.

Steve makes a number of assumptions and leaps to conclusions not 
necessarily the most probable in light of all the evidence.

The important thing in accessing the validity of such speculation is 
to carefully think through all the different scenarios and try to do 
some careful comparative assessment of various cases and evidence. 

For example, is the "drug use" hypothesis a viable explanation of all 
of Olcott's encounters with the paranormal?

Or how valid is the "drug use" hypothesis in reasonably explaining 
the paranornmal experiences of the scores of other witnesses related 
to Madame Blavatsky's case?

It is essential to carefuly assess all of this without jumping 
hastily to conclusions one way or the other. To do otherwise is to 
fall into the kinds of fallacies and misleading conclusions made by 
former reseachers like Jean Overton Fuller and K. Paul Johnson.

I have a friend who clearly accepts and believes in telepathy and 
clairvoyance but rejects materializations or levitation of objects. 
To a materialistic minded skeptic like Dr. Paul Kurtz or the Amazing 
Randi, BOTH mental paranormal phenomena as well as physical parnormal 
phenomena are highly improbable and questionable. 

Brigitte, I have a question for you. I believe that you have 
previously stated that you accept the reality of some forms of ESP. 
If this is true, then are you resistant to the reality of physical 
paranormal phenomena? 

I have another friend who once pooh-poohed the idea that Madame 
Blavatsky could, let us say, levitate a spoon. But later he closely 
observed the levitation of an object under circumstances where he 
could definitely rule out fraud, malobservation and hallucination. 
That one personal experience has changed what my friend is willing to 
accept as possible or impossible and has given him a new perspective 
on such experiences.

Some food for careful thought and deliberation.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc