 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mar 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | Muskogee, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Although I don't post much, Mark has brought this subject to my attention, and I thought I might add a few thoughts of my own.
First of all, I am Mark's wife (if you may recall, Keith), and I can attest that he is NOT the Mark Macy in question.
I'm pretty sure the name on our marriage certificate is not Macy. 
Brian, I respect your point of view. A healthy skepticism is necessary for the progression of research. However, I think many people forget the true meaning of the word "skeptic." I took this from Wikipedia, from the topic "skeptic":
"In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object; (b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or (c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster). In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about (a) an inquiry, (b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, (c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values, (d) the limitations of knowledge, (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment."
Please note that the definition of skeptic does NOT imply that what is disbelieved is true. It is a method by which one studies a subject in order to present an opposing alternative to presented material WITHOUT claiming something to be true. "Suspended judgment" is what is called for, not claiming a conclusion. In that light, BOTH skeptics and believers should remain open minded.
Brian, you quoted the line which was placed over the pics on the opening page of the Spiricom Study site: "TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION !" What is "truth?" Isn't that what we're all trying find? Evidence may eventually point to a conclusion which then generally becomes accepted as truth. However, I hope we can all agree that this field is so new and so challenging that no absolute concrete proof has been generated one way or the other. We each have our individual truths, do we not? Case in point: I do believe we survive bodily death, but Mark is still looking for evidence one way or the other. I believe that was all Thomas Edison wanted. Did he not state that he didn't know if there was life after death, that he merely wished to research ways to facilitate communication IF there was?
I noted the article was dated 1920. The Spiritualist movement which began with the Foxx Sisters was ebbing at that time, having enjoyed a brief resurgence during and after World War I. The Society for Psychical Research had debunked and defrauded many (but not all) mediums from the rise of the movement up to Edison's time. I know this is probably not news to you, but I present it as edification for those who may not know the history. I would imagine a man of Edison's stature would be very cautious at this point not to present himself as a proponent of Spiritualism.
According to The Death and Afterlife Book: An Encyclopedia of Death, Near Death and Life After Death by James R. Lewis,1 the Spiricom was not developed until 1982:
"EVP researchers were tantalized by new possibilities when in 1982 George Meek, a retired engineer, announced that he and William O'Neill, a medium and electronics expert, had constructed an instrument throuigh which one could communicate with spirits of the dead. Instructions for the device had been given in a seance, and they called it Spiricom. Meek made the information necessary to build Spiricom widely available, but no one who actually put together such an instrument reported that it worked satisfactorily. Some people in the field speculated that Meek's own success with Spiricom was a function of O'Neill's abilities as a psychic medium."
It appears it was acknowledged even at the time that Spiricom wasn't successful. So, why the argument? Was the conclusion made that becuase Spiricom didn't work satisfactorily that ALL scientific attempts to facilitate communication with the dead are fraudulent? O'Neill may have been out to make a buck, I don't know. But should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Hans Holzer asserted in Ghosts: True Encounters with the World Beyond2 that one must be psychic to perceive and receive information from the dead:
"For us to be able to see or hear a ghost requires a gift known as psychic ability or ESP--extrasensory perception. Professor Joseph Banks Rhine of Duke University thinks of ESP as an extra sense. Some have referred to it as "the sixth sense," although I rather think the gift of ESP is merely an extension of the ordinary senses beyond their usual limitations.
If you don't have ESP, you're not likely to encounter a ghost or connect with the spirit of a loved one. Take heart, however: ESP is very common, in varying degrees, and about half of all people are capable of it. It is, in my view, a normal gift that has in many instances been neglected or suppressed for various reasons, chiefly ignorance or fear.
Psychic ability is being recognized and used today worldwide in many practical applications. Scientific research, business, and criminal investigations have utilized this medium to extend the range of ordinary research."
While my own personal truth does not coincide with Holzer's (I do not feel one has to be psychic to experience paranormal activity), I merely present this as a possibility. If Holzer is right, and if one needs to be psychic to experience paranormal activity, wouldn't it then follow that the Spiricom actually worked for O'Neill because he was psychic, but wouldn't work for those who aren't? Just a thought.
It's good to have a mentor, someone from whom you can learn, but please be careful not to close your mind and accept someone else's truth as your own. If you've come to the same conclusion after careful research and feel innately that this is your truth, great! However, this is an area where innumerable beliefs abound and not everybody has studied the same material; indeed, we are still just trying to find ways to study this field!
Spiricom has its history in ITC, just as the Kittyhawk had its history in aviation. What Frank and Orville Wright's truly intrinsic motivations for developing manned flight were, we don't know. Were they out to make a buck? Perhaps. But you can bet they made a few modifications and had a few crashes before they successfully took flight. If it weren't for them, however, Mark and I wouldn't be married! (He's from England, I, the United States). So, whatever the motivation, there it is.
Thank you for your time -- Cougar
1The Death and Afterlife Book: The Encyclopedia of Death, Near Death, and Life After Death, Lewis, James R.; pp. 130-131; 2001 by Visible Ink Press
2Ghosts: True Encounters with the World Beyond, Holzer, Hans; p.29; 1997 by Aspera Ad Astra Inc.