The existential conditions
The existential conditions
"Recognizing one's seclusion as a separate individual"
The excity with this condition has different parts: Telepathy, notice, "holism", can be perceived as a way of overcoming this seclusion (everything and everyone is present always, even the dead). The focus on perfection, and the fact that oneself perhaps in some sense belongs to "a spearhead" (ref litt) means that this separation also gets the traits of something narcissistic.
Here write something about differences in the material, and speculation, about different ways of dealing with seclusion and loneliness
Life has no meaning, one should only live on, the experience of life is its meaning, so to speak… What could be the ultimate sentence? (Respondents don't think "heaven" would be a goal.)
It is the balance between seclusion and community that is something about? According to Werbart and others, both things should be recognized. That we are ultimately alone, and that we need each other… It seems to be finding a special solution for both of them.
The guide is seen as a "voice in the head"
Synchronicity, "not a grain of dust", everything is perfect
The oceanic… Movies like Mission Impossible, and all of it. All there is. "It all exists somehow," said one respondent. (I wonder if she means the Matrix?)
There are angels, helpers, who can be contacted at any time and from anywhere. You may also have a "twin soul" that is always close, and forever. How does this notion differ from the monotheistic Father, the one who exists for all of us in a just way. Perhaps more like house gods, amulets?
Here comes the numinous in, what the myths describe… And as Freud derided as "the oceanic"… How does the life experience or vision of mystics differ from that of new age followers? Hmm?
Someone claims that she had experience of something divine, before NA, by meditating. "This trust you can gain when you meditate, with there being more space, so on. It feels good, all is well." (g27) Can also be somewhat dissociative (self-induced dissociative?…)
Relationships sometimes seem to have a symbiotic character. This is also an ideal. Perhaps this is also reinforced by and made possible with the idea of reincarnation. The idea of a "twin soul" is an example of this, someone with whom one is connected through time and space. When incarnated at the same time, this can result in a relationship that is rare tight and intense and not always harmonious. When you are apart, you can sense the other person's feelings telepathically. The times one is not incarnated on earth at the same time, the other may act as a "guardian angel".
Many stories of intense encounters with people who are perceived as friends and acquaintances from another life.
An email friend, than older man (her woman) and then they finally met. They had a relationship on their own. I had a strong meeting that raised the certainty that you had met in a previous life."There's a difference when you look in living life in the eye, than when you look at a photo, huh. I had seen him in a photo. And I just said… Hey, Lars, I think I feel… Because he's into this too… I feel like we've known each other before, I said. Yes, he said." (Island16)
A person you like, or a meeting that aroused feelings, then becomes someone you may have met in a previous incarnation. "And then I'll be like this. Well, if you've walked different lives together, and I've probably had some life together."
In the story of intense meetings, the gaze often plays an important role. When you look, you can feel that you've met before. Or you should simply avoid facing the gaze (in regression therapy). What's wrong with eyes? Can one not endure uncertainty, or emotional pressure, but must decide that the strong feeling has to do with a shared incarnation in the past?
An acquaintance had recognized her current husband in a vision from a previous life. You have the same eyes life after life. (Ö56) Another was asked by a medium not to look the person who would appear in a vison in the eye, because then she would understand who it was (ö56)
"And then it's just the eyes, for the body you don't have with you" (ö57)
A bright view of death. To look at death as something bright and positive. "Because I know that when I die, everything will get much better. Then I come to another level in the universe where all is well."
"Recognizing the division into two genders and the impossibility of being both"
The question of how the sexes change, or that the goal is androgynity, the death of the nuclear family, that the individual will no lower become a parent, may possibly be a burning topic in relation to gender theory, etc. The view of male and female is at all interesting in the material.
Something about how to relate to the different sexes, or as some theorist wrote (who?), that you don't have to see it as two genders, but at all this not to be "everything"
Gender is seen as something essential, "men" and "women", poles, two different energies
How do you understand that the new age is very much a "women's movement"? I need to think about how the doctrine is different for men and women (in general)
There is also an interest in feminism, and solidarity for, for example, women in cultures that oppress. May well be linked to the general skepticism towards patriarchy, the church's men, the church, etc. – The Arab world. Iran and Afghanistan, those communities. No balance between the sexes. Everyone should be allowed to live and work on equal terms. Women's issues, equal rights.
Disappointment for the men you have lived in a relationship with, for their disinterest, among other things. Islam. The emancipation of the woman. Repression. (cit) When I was a kid, "Up to Dad Looked Like God" One respondent described this as strange.
No structural perspective
There is also a somewhat elitist argument here. "When they're tired of being oppressed." When these Muslim women have suffered generation after generation, in the end they are sad, then things start to happen. And there will be a lot of suffering, and bombs, disasters, and many will die… Because that must be the case. It's not a world of peace and peace (if not? See int3, row 767!) (e26)
"We have to get to a point where we've had enough, and we haven't had that yet."
NA talks about male and female, archetytypic principles that complement each other. (island47). But at the same time, an androgynity ideal. And you often switch genders between incarnations. So how could one characterize new age/newness based on, for example, gender theory is difficult? At least it's a "speciality", isn't it?
NA is both radical, and conservative. Male and female are archetytypic, but the characteristics of man are not essensial, when one alternates gender between incarnations. Everyone has both sides in them (Jung with his anima and animus fits), but still, etc. Another of the paradoxes of new age, it seems. (Or as with the "darkness," the idealistic arc is tightened so tightly that what doesn't fit just has to come out.
Those currents that claim that the individual retains the same sex for long periods of time may then be easier to categories – and attack – based on a modern gender mindset. But there is also the ideal of androgynisticity.
You need to have both men and women in a workplace. Then, however, it resonates from something that is gender-specific, rather than individual (ö48)
"Recognizing the separation of generations"
How do you see this with responsibility, guilt, gratitude, etc. To be able to renounce the superiority of individuality and be there for someone else to grow.
View of parents.
What respondents tell us about their parents can think about… Granqvist in his AAI interviews says that several people talk about their parents in a very conflicting, bitter way among New AE supporters… Is this here? And if so, how does it hurt? One way is that they are people with difficult experiences. One can also imagine a "contrast phenomenon", where ordinary life, the trivial childhood experiences, the shortcomings of parents and non-spirituality, are perceived as darker than it actually was? (In this study, I want to avoid thinking about childhood causes, but more about the aspect that has to do with the doctrine, etc., the "self-chosen"…)
Here it is possible to make a parallel to psychoanalytic theory and experience, that, for example, things such as frustration in early years are necessary for a healthy personality development.
Become a parent myself.
Parenthood has been a feature of the vast majority of people's lives up through evolution, and still is. If a human life is seen as a space flight, and man himself as a craft, then parenthood is one of the "steps" that at some point in early adulthood are usually activated and provide additional speed and stability to the journey.
It is possible to live a rich life without children. Many are never given the opportunity, or make contact with a longing in themselves when it is too late. It is not about them that this is about. Instead, it is a kind of attitude that is grown within e.g. NA that can become problematic. Where this choice is never even up to conscious reflection or consideration, but is dismissed with reference to ideas within the worldview – and from a self-image held up by the worldview – and never mourned.
That's what's about parenting: it has the power to make people more alive. Because of children nice, but also because it raises the debt theme. As a parent, you always feel guilty, etc. (Winnicott would write.
"Be like Jesus, it will be fine."
There's something about all or nothing here. Jesus is seen as a good parent, as is a part of the Masters. Hardly any of the world deserves this. And those who are seen as great may even become too great and too perfect (newness deals with absolute greats, not only in relation to the nothing numinous, like the religious or mystic, but they imagine travel presenters for such a state here and now, among writers, etc., plus that it is a very chiselled radiant perfection (complete cognitive and empathetic perfection), plus that's what you have as a kind of end value on the scale against the rest you set yourself as well as others.
To fend for yourself. Not needing anyone else. To also be free in relation to parents – having had to learn this possibly – to be self-sufficient, self-sufficient.
Relationships are not layered by age and life experience, but level of development. I don't need others. Great thoughts about himself. Adolescent trait.
Double relationship with hiearchies. On the one hand, the equality, the tolerance (which Wikström makes fun of), a truth is as good as one, no one should tell anyone else what is true (besides, all the great potentates in the world are wrong, science and the church). At the same time as such a attraction to just above and subordination in the doctrine itself, the development ladder, the worship of the enlightened, etc. One wants to interpret it as a problematic relationship with this very existential "condition"
Elitism, hiearchy based on spiritual development, not relationship, actual know-how, gratitude, guilt, etc. All are unique, but some are extra unique (paradox). The idea of equality is strong, fair, while all respondents embrace a hierarchical view of individuals and cultures.
Role reversals, according to attachment theory. Relatives are reborn in new combinations. Parents are just fellow hikers. You have your own "psychic DNA" with you.
How does this relate to the true image of God? A god who is absent, administers our suffering (and happiness)? The "older generation" is supposed to give us security, something to grow against, right?
In new age, the older generation of cognitively and sympathetically accomplished individuals, such as Masters and Teachers, are represented. It has nothing to do with parents and relatives, theoretically (because we are all the same age, it is the level of spiritual development that counts). However, many people express gratitude to elderly relatives and others, which must be seen as a good sign (although in some sense clashes with certain theoretical beliefs or persistences)
Religism and Scientologistism.
There is an equivalent of Scientologistism in the religious sphere. To be critical of religion, but at the same time to embrace and appreciate certain parts of it: the Jesus figure, not least. Not the ordinary Gospels, but some other Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas.
It's time for the church to move on. Jesus is good and the church room… Time for the church to move on. They are empty, because they have nothing to give (e27) Skip this with sin and forgiveness and rubbish, and talk about life and love (e28)
Churches are needed. When there is a disaster, people go there. An oasis. But then there should not be a priest standing there and grinding (e28)
Some people say that all religions are good, because "they teach us about love"… All religions are important that they exist, because they make us more human and more human.
This is something that psychoanalysis has also been accused of. Source? Wulff?
But the impression may also be that you "want to participate", but do not really know how to do (as younger people). A projective phenomenon in which one's own weakness and fragility are projected outwards and upwards.
One can also see that new age/newness may test its powers against the larger and older authorities, the older "paradigm".
Disapproval of authority.
The criticism of, for example, the Church and normal science, which after all has a long history, a lot of experience and put a lot of effort into this area that the newness goes into… Why so hard to recognize these diciplins as "elderly relatives"? (But you like Christ, but it almost feels like he's taken hostage by the Church.)
A scientific jargon. Psychotherapeutic, scientific jargon, terms from physics, for example. Although they are critical of these phenomena… A preoccupation in similar areas to the usual science (partly because it's about our world, and our human psyche, of course). And interest in its findings. Although this should not harden this, but this cannot be likened to children who dress in adult clothes, adults play… (Or "when the student thinks he knows more than the master" as it's called somewhere…)
There is a kernel of truth in all religion. Today sees that all these different traditions are very much aspects of in a way the same core (e25)
A simplistic view of history (simple answers to complex questions, as Hammer writes) also implies a disapproval of the authorities who actually look more complexly at it? They mess up, don't see the big truths… "Thousands of years ago, we were barbarians. We killed each other, and it was like… Yes, what did we have. We had Vikings and yes it was raw, and revenge was done on families and killed hello wildly. It was really barbaric. Then came the Old Testament. And then people actually started to sharpen up and become a little more humane. And then came the New Testament, because then you were open to a little more love and things like this. And now, when we have actually come this far, came the Third Testament, which is the Martinusevangeliet. For now, people are ripe to take another bigger step then. (Ö55)
Indicates as a motive for wanting to set up that the academy is a dead place, that you want to get some light in there.
However, the material also contains appreciative words about science, the National Board of Health and Welfare, etc. Good priests, etc.
"Many in the NA partly reject the academic world, for good reason, as death. But I still think that's the way we have to go. Get away from flux. It is even God's instrument. (e41)"
Why do we reject the authorities?
This is analogous to teenagers who may find the adults immature. But why can they come to such a conclusion? Of course, it depends a lot on the criteria. The adults work all day to get to eat yourself full, drive one to football training, wash your clothes, etc. But this is rejected. Instead, there are other things that are set as criteria and valued higher. And there the authority stands flat. "Truth", consistency, not double standards (i.e. compromising, mediating, being seen as weakness)
Simplified view of history.
Simplified view of history. Step model over lower and higher developed. The theory of theosophy with "root races" has been toned down, but there is still a kind of colonial conception of the superiority of different cultures.
Black coats, joy killers, like a pos!
The church and Christianity are "Old Age" according to some within the NA, according to an informant, who himself sees something positive in the Christian, "darker" view of div. (e39) The black coats, the joy killers, the Taliban. The same person who says this with "fear of God"… After all, an acceptance that it is not only pleasant, power
New authorities (not "masters")
One person is described as "a Zen Buddhist high-roller named, what is his name again. Yes, it is an American at least who is a high protence in Zen Buddhism, he is educated in Japan and" (g1)
Pythagoras was then a person who had reached beyond the bounds of the human. And there are very few such people in history (g10
What are projected on these "future leaders"?
On the leaders of the future, a lot is also projected that is about x.
Freud et al, "the unconscious"
Something like an "unconscious" does not really appear in the material. In this sense, one might say it is a post-Freudian view of humanity. Here it can be argued that we have generally not been able to integrate the claims of psychoanalysis, but we are struggling with them. And the concepts have found their way into our language, in movies, etc. But in the new world, there is an almost hardened resistance to this. It's part of the doctrine. (To be compared with the more mature parts of Christendom, which are very close to psychoanalysis, StLukas etc.).
That the usual deep psychology is not contrary to NA, but may lack any dimension. "Jung knew there was something else, he was a bit like this. But others only talk about the unconscious. But to connect it from there to something bigger… (island65)
This to "connect to something bigger" I see rather as a way of wanting to "bypass" the unconscious, as this would be so affecting and lumpy in comparison…
"If we solve the energy issue, people won't have to fight anymore." A concrete and somewhat naïve way of looking at the issue, it may seem. One underestimates the destructive or egocentric forces of man, disregarding the fact that conflicts, "grabbing", have nothing to do with resource scarcity…
However, there are some exceptions in the material, which must be highlighted. Firstly, the woman who speaks precisely of the unconscious, of aggression in a healthy way, that reincarnation memories that can be symbolic ("one can feel you are drowning in your ordinary life"). She also criticizes, for example, waldorf where children are not allowed to watch television, and against "newage" art that should be so sweet and pastel…
That when you are in direct contact with your true desires, you also have a contact with God. Do your will, not mine." (island65)
A "naïve" analysis of the world?
The demands that will be placed on future leadership. The UN needs to have "wise men" in its leadership. (e31)
Teach our children to kill. A country may kill, but not a human being, it should not be the same (e31)
Same laws for everyone. You're not going to kill someone just because you're president and let someone else do it (e32)
Same laws for everyone. You're not going to kill someone just because you're president and let someone else do it (e32)
"They should be wise people, like Jesus, in that direction. In fact, it's like thinking that everyone is going to be fine. Not that there are some who should have a lot of money, and the others should have nothing" (ö58)
How do you understand why these descriptions so often seem to remind us of how children reason? That children look with clear eyes at things that we adults have lost? Or does it have something to do with regressive tendencies? "Induced regression." A difficulty solidifying with people in general? (jmfr Animals)
"Neither the psychologist nor the psychologist can help."
Neither the psychologist nor the priest can help. They must learn newness
If someone is open, then you have to be able to resort to the life mystery solution model… and not talk therapy and valium (e36)
Then you should basically send them to the prällen. And the prällen hasn't either. He says only the ways of the Lord are inscrutable. And then he gets to come back to you and he gets valium (e36)
Reincarnation memories, having "done so much"
Even if you don't remember any previous lives, the thought can provide comfort and meaning. "Unfortunately, I don't remember. It may be good that you don't remember your past lives, but I have an intuitive feeling that I have lived many times and so on. And I don't worry about things like I haven't had children, and things like that a lot of women think are a disaster, because I feel like that. I've probably been through that a lot of times. I might as well get out of this time and do other things instead." (Island12)
There's no evil, does it belong here?
"God as a Parent"
God is a strange "parent", that's hardly how he is. He is "light." What is this relation to the generational theme? Someone who is so big and abstract, but who thus won't be able to say a personal NO, if there's something you've done wrong. Such is more a mechanical consequence, karma repercussions
Granqvist blasphemes that at the group level he finds more individuals with disorganized affiliation in the group new age… I.e. experiences of whimsical parents, unpredictable
Little opportunity for reconcilement, "earned security", which Granqvist and others claim to have seen in those who instead seek out traditional religion, Christianity… One respondent says, "Don't be an idiot who kneels!" But from a Christian point of view, perhaps this is precisely what is needed?, to submit, to find one's place?
It's not a god you turn to for comfort "no you know there are others, helpers and others"
What is it in the poem: "For lack of respect, so…" The New Age is the fantasy of someone who doesn't have much to build their fantasies from, or who doesn't quite allow himself. But still can't help it.
One respondent says that he can appreciate the expression "fear of God", but immediately adds that it is not a popular test in his circles, as he understood it.
Want to be convinced with equations, if "he exists"
Gnostic vision – precursor to the "new age"?
A respondent has a more Gnostic view of God etc., saying that the world came about through a bad god, while the real god has not been present, in a way cannot be held responsible (is Gnosticism a pre-stage to new age, things have not yet been "brought to a head" and made completely rational, watertight?)
Humans already have a "higher self", which "is up there somewhere", says one respondent… "the healing of the self," as Heelas writes. You are, or at least you will be, "God". But can this be argued different from the boy or girl who wants to be like his parents as she or he gets older?
Mother Earth, pre-monotheistic god?
Mother Earth talks a lot about… It is also a precursor to the monotheistic god. An interest in natural religions, etc. But is the "pantheism" of new age adherents different from that of the world religion? Because it's so much more individualistic… It is not a communion with ancestors, relatives, manhood rites, etc., but Mother Earth is subsumed into a more "naïve" or counter-tensioned system of thought?
"Although I am not a Christian myself, or have any faith in God to speak of, these stories make a distressing impression on me… Perhaps even the atheist can have a more satisfying relationship with his non-god than a supporter of new age/newness might have to his?"
Not so much dark powers are included in the material, someone tells me that "a lot of unpleasant things happened in my life", she connects it to security services etc, who should have spiritual abilities, mind reading, etc.
Have the truth, the others should just "catch up"
The new paradigm is NA, in short. The view of whether this is something that existed in ancient times – but when and where – or if it is something that is now to emerge. Or if it's something that's been there as a potential, in our interior, but not realized, it's a little unclear.
"Recognizing your dependence on others"
A highly driven individualism. Collaboration is more like an ideal. In the research on "uniersialism" etc., the researchers ask how this group can have such strong ideals of equality, participation, but get such low scores on "collectivism", how this goes together (ref litt). It is also clear that it is the individual who develops, by his own power. The possible help you get or need is theoretically at least the kind you "cash in", your own energies that return… There are also traits of fatalism, determinism, according to which one also does not have to make an effort, seek help. "Everything has a meaning" that happens, that comes to you.
Not belonging to a church. You buy your own books, written perhaps by a supposedly perfect, dead, person. At the same time, the respondents' criticism of how groups can align and limit is of course true.
Born into a flock.
A respondent who talks about it in a way that feels good, a little aggressive, pleasurable, how to define yourself, find himself in all that. Acknowledging the conflict, the struggle, the challenge, that's the way it is
Love and hate are connected.
Love and hate are close to each other. This is something that respondents would find difficult to agree with.Perhaps saying "infatuation and hatred" is possibly close to each other, but not real love, etc. But this must be problematized (Winnicott about attacking the object, and watching it survive, etc). But it is a clear sign of the possible curtailment of an "inner room"… (This is better for "generations"?)
Faith in action, instead of "mercy." Christians believe that one cannot deserve to go to heaven, we are all sinful, etc. But that's not how my respondents see it.
Meetings as "metaphors"
An interviewee discusses a meeting with a person, what significance this has for her. Then slipping more and more over that maybe it's a "metaphor," it was something she needed to see. Even when you meet someone, you may not meet the other so that they exist "in their own right". It's an event that has to do with your own learning, your own karma. One respondent believes that the other may not even exist in reality but "but materialized" right there and then to give her something, a conversation, some insights, etc.
One respondent wonders why she had so many people dying around her. In order for her to learn, she concludes
In this attitude that "there is something good in all directions" there is potentially also a danger, or hiding something that needs to be problematized. "He who has no enemies has no friends." Pride, insulation stents. Omnipotence.
Owe Wikström on "have your truth and I have mine", need not be tolerance (ref), but unwillingness to learn, unwillingness to negotiate, unwillingness to be part of a joint knowledge project, one might say, how are we going to get the best possible time together here on earth.
Strongly religious people may love their church and their god, know that they are on the right path, but also allow themselves to criticize or belittle the choices of others. Idealization, comparatively? But NA followers then who have a rather cool relationship with a possible God. And allows everyone to have "their own truth". "If it feels right for you then I'll let it be right for you" (Wikström). What to say about them? Are supporters of new age/newness less passionate people perhaps?
That you also do not need to help others, as they experience both what they themselves sent out and partly what they need for their development ("it may need another bomb")…
This should also be related to the concept of debt… Needing others, belonging, getting support
"Wisdom from the Coach" says life "isn't fair!" For this author, this is the very basic insight to do…
Life has a millimetre justice. There is no way to suffer from other stupidities or wrong decisions, but you are responsible yourself. And so is everyone else. (Some statements in a different context, today in Sweden, would be astounding: about raped and disabled people, that it is their "karma" that they themselves laid the foundation for, and should learn from.)
This can also give a tolerance, that one does not actually know what others are "here to do, or experience, or what is the goal of their success or adversity"
The Law of Karma is not only a judgmental law, it also provides the conditions to create what one desires.
The idea is creation, it is not necessary to cooperate or ask for help. Things can come to one on a perseious road, a car for example, money.
The "ego" will be driven out, then it will be fine… There's something sturgeon about it all, cohesive, self-sufficient
"The Christians think it's so easy," just pray a little, or drink some Communion wine.
Instead of asking, you can get information and strength in other ways…
You have the knowledge within you. You know everything when you sleep, or between lives. Then you forget. We have all had the knowledge before (only MK?), been perfect, but "gone down" again.
"You're religious and you go to church and all that choir. You live in your little world and believe in God. But believe, you just think. Martinus knows (e30)
I don't think so. I know, I know. No not know, but question (e30)
Can you doubt it? "I don't have one of those BELIEFS like this and this is how it is, and I believe in this at all costs. I really have nothing to doubt." (Island71) "
This answer is different than saying that you have no faith, because you are convinced of yours or yours.
Possibly by linking to another "omniscient" teacher or author
Being mocked, "UFO"
There is a duality here. The idea of equality, the wandering of the lonely soul – at the same time with a great interest in hierarchies and those who are supposed to have reached perfection (adol) Several informants tell of a fear of being mocked, if they tell about their interests… Counter, kuf, UFO. A man is afraid of not being able to get a future service if his name comes to light in the study.
This is parallel to the feeling of actually sitting on "a treasure", the truth, the solution to the riddle of suffering, etc. (and several also say that they are aware that the resonant can sound heartless etc. and that it is therefore wise not to talk about it with anyone)
Psychotherapy vs affirmations.
Problems can be solved yourself. Affirmations, mediation, HoloSync. PSYK – affirm, visualize, "out of the box"
The usual psychotherapy is important, it is emphasized. But perhaps in a special phase, like rough cleaning. Life crises, divorces. It is also desirable that it develops, opening up to the spiritual. Transpersonal currents.
Unorthodox combinations, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and "plejadhealing". (Who mentions the last one?) Angel healing is in the material anyway.
However, there are great testimonials about how to get help from psychotherapy with! She couldn't decide if her therapist was great, or not so good, because she didn't want to talk about spiritual things… She was happy and grateful for what it gave me.
Are you a Democrat-Socialist Socialist?
Another borrows an expression from Paul, about giving meat to his disciples and milk to the public (cit?). that a more esoteric tradition has been needed, and an exoteric that may have been distorted and worthy. (e24) But aware that this "secret" easily falls on a collision course with the democratic ideals of our time.
Is it no more of an "enlightened king" as one imagines? That is, an enlightened perfect person, who then understands and knows more than the citizens do, must surely be the ideal ruler, after all. No one who can be selected for…
Here, the reasoning fits from cognitive experiments, where new age followers exhibited abnormal patterns… There is a very strong focus on a better world, but
Here this is asked about coherence and what challenges this poses to the psyche, at its peak. The newness as a whole teaches that there is no rush, theoretically. Everything goes on, you learn, etc… Emotionally – "forgetful of all theories" – one may still think that one wants to save those who suffer badly, counteract the destructive forces of the world, etc. This feels healthy in the material, when it is not only impatience with the authority, but that you want it to get better.
Community engagement – not just in the early new age (Hammer)
Hammer and others argue that the New Age is now mostly about the individual's advancement. In the past, it was more of a movement to change society. It was society that was facing an "increase".
But in the material there is a lot about the future of the world and humanity as well. A commitment to injustice, oppression. Here again, the interesting paradox arises: everything is the responsibility of the individual, yet it is the world that is wrong?
Although not so much is about how to contribute to this, work politically, participate in organization, etc.
This is seen in a "moral" context.
Human history is seen as being in a moral context. The usual religions have played a crucial role. NA represents the next step. Progress is not material, etc. It's a kingdom of love. In this sense, there is a lot of social criticism in the doctrine. It is not growth that is the future, or the yardstick. It's spiritual, human values, it's all about.
Hurry, or not?
Either the development and accumulation of experience runs on by itself. Or you want to emphasize the importance of free will, that humanity is at a crossroads
Some people stress how important it is for us to act. Another answers the question that science may not be ready to take in these larger perspectives, that first other discoveries need to be done that can pave the way (e21)
So I think that either we get on the train, and develop and get past this (g8)
"Admitting your vulnerability"
To be vulnerable, weak, limited, incomplete, exposed. How does the New Age help to become less vulnerable? How do you relate to the cult of suffering? (Is all the talk of suffering inverse proportion to how much one actually perceives one's suffering…)
Invulnerable and hypersensitive?
Informant tells about heightened sensitivity, having to avoid certain places. After all, there is the whole spectrum (although not know much in this material) of thoughts about electrical allergy, toxins in food, radiation, the intrusion of the outside world into one's own world that one cannot resist… "Lock", "junk" is mentioned, to be cleaned away… Amalgam, mushroom candida in the stomach.
To be affected by the moods and suffering of others telepathically, can be found in the material
(Here, however, it can be valuable to recall that psychodynamic theory and experience hold a lot that the public – or, for that matter, colleagues with a different orientation – can perceive as similarly fuzzy: transfer and countertransmission, parallel processes in a staff group working with certain types of clients, projective identification, etc.).
Here is something of the concrete, which Hammer comments on. 1-to-1 ratio. No transformative line is recognized. However, the IP points out that reincarnation memory can be symbolic! An exception in the line of reported reincarnation causalities and symptoms.
Why can't you "know" some of the things that new people say you've experienced, such as past lives. And why don't you have the enlightened knowledge, omniscience, when it is so close, for example, experienced between lives? Here there is a temptation to "know in advance", is what one can perceive as, for example, Scientologistism, i.e. that it is not about faith, but knowledge.
One type of reasoning that appears in all interviews is how the causes of suffering and difficulties can sometimes be placed in previous incarnations.
Phobias, fears of specific things like fire, water or heights, can be linked to concrete events in past lives. This performance is a general performance, or the person had certain experiences that could confirm this (cit: polo shirt, difficult speaking in groups, swimming)… The droskan hit me (in a more timely life), therefore a sore hip…
Solved the theodicé problem, but at what cost?
The "theodicé problem" has been solved. But at what price? Can one carry this clue or "watertight" knowledge, without relationships etc. suffering. One's vulnerability, need for others, a fear, uncertainty, etc.? What does it do to things like compassion etc. (although this doesn't have to be in opposition)
Criticism of "The Secret", for example, respondents who emphasize that it can be harsh and cynical. Perhaps you can see it as an acknowledgment of your own vulnerability. How can you sit and say what others deserve, or failed to do, etc… Danger get blunted, say one, i.e. a little too "invulnerable" simply
Some species of NA go too far in their interpretations or generalizations. These species are not associated with these species. One person tells me that she reads certain books that she describes as "borderline cases". It's commercial, but she still has elements that inspire her. "Think of a car so it's about yours tomorrow."
The animal ethics resonation can be understood as an over-identification with the vulnerability of animals. They are as valuable as people. But at a price? Avoiding one's own "species", solidifying oneself with the animals instead. Their vulnerability and innocence touch a lot. (Young children often have this, quite naturally, which is cute, but is it also because they have not yet developed solidarity, empathy, in a more mature form? Plus, kids can recognize themselves in cute animals better too… That's how they are for adults.)
Spiritual problems, "kundalini".
Kundalini forces, Pride, Spiritual emergency… I don't know if it fits under this condition.
This is partly in the previous category. But there is possibly one aspect of being the strong and helping or enlightening the weaker, which must be problematized. "I'm going to be a healer, etc.
"Recognizing your ageing"
The living conditions, recognizing realities, time, abstaining, standing back, releasing the younger and stronger, those who have the future ahead of them.
How do you neglect aging, weakness, disease?
The physical body is "a shell", "no older than you feel", better and better day by day
The idea of evolution in new age gives no reason to mourn aging. Children are adults before they are born into this world, and choose us as parents. And when we die, we are young again, and in the next life we take over, cognitively and in other ways, where we left off.
We can plan for our next life, to start learning something in old age now no problem, because we bring that to the next.
You move forward, it's not a "jumping"
Here comes the reasoning about "conspirituatlity" (Muertos, Voas, ref!) in, i.e. the now middle-aged New Age prophets, mostly men (David Icke, for example) who have gained a noticeably darker worldview over the years… We would get so far, it would be so bright, why hasn't it happened? Because others prevented it from… Here comes a guilt that doesn't really have a place in the "new age" doctrine, that you hold someone else accountable. Also disappointment, denied aging, that you did not reach as far as one had hoped yourself…
Natural aging is probably an "underlying variable" that eludes some of the respondents. You don't get wiser or wiser, or calmer, or get better self-esteem because you've been into newness, meditation (although it may well help for sure). But if it's because you're getting older… But since chronological, everyday aging is not recognized, it is the doctrine/practice that is given the honor… And what is seen as spiritual development, sophistication, is what virtually all people can experience, only that this may also escape the new age, because the "in-out group discourse" is so strong: Those who do not engage in newness have not yet understood, or not matured enough, so they are counted out, as reference persons, "people"
Possible source of error, to confuse the development that the understanding of the specific doctrine, or the practice of the particular method, intends to lead to, but the development that normally comes with life experience and increasing age? (Reduced sex drive, poorer memory, better self-esteem, etc.)
"Happy end," as Hammer writes, a spell?
"Admitting your impending death"
The ultimate violation, the threat, the absolute overlord, the end.
Just change cars? Wanting to escape and not have to think about death is universal. How does the New Age differ from the general human?
Death is an illusion, comes back new and fresh
Experience and talents remain
Death is seen as something bright, many even say they are looking forward to it. That then everything will be enclave, you "get wings and can fly wherever you want".
This also seems to be helpful in the meeting with, for example, close relatives who have died. A couple of the respondents tell us about this, that their bright outlook on life here has been an asset
Denying death also guarantees justice: Those who do something bad in this life get a payback time perhaps in the next. What is usually explained in heaven, god's judgment, is placed here to future incarnations?
"Being a separate individual"
"Having a gender"
"Separation of generations"