Correction...

CORRECTION: 

Sherlock Holmes may not be the most logical character in literary history; that is simply my opinion.  Though I think that Don Quixote may be a close second...

What Are Ghosts? Part 2

In general, evidence of ghosts has been inconclusive. 

There has been a long history of attempts at photographing this type of paranormal phenomenon, and the success of these attempts differs by whom you talk to about it.  The photograph is by nature subjective – it is not reality, but rather a form of art.  The moment a lens is pointed at something, a subjective choice has been made, and when the shutter is depressed, that choice is cemented.

Apparitions caught on film date back to the invention of the camera.  Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the most logical character in the history of literature, Sherlock Holmes, believed in the infamous fake photos dubbed “The Cottingley Fairies” that came to light in 1917 and caused a fervor. 

What is so obviously detected as fraud in the present was believed as magical when eyes first viewed them in the early 1900’s.  Doyle embraced this photograph as definitive proof of the spiritual world.

It’s my opinion that the brain, even those brains existing in humans of high intellect, when presented with visual information it has never seen before it may not immediately know how to comprehend it, and therefore grossly misjudge it.  As viewers, we’ve become more savvy to trickery, as we are aware of what a program like Photoshop can conjure without any paranormal assistance.  It’s getting harder to fool us.  But the technology grows, as evidenced by the gadgets of increasing complexity used by “ghost hunters” on various cable network television shows.

For examples of these shows, follow these links:

http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/

http://www.travelchannel.com/tv-shows/ghost-adventures

And for all you ghost-hunting aficionados who can’t get enough of these shows, you can get more information on this site that “strives to bring you the most up to date paranormal television shows from around the world”:

http://www.extremeghosthunters.com/

The more savvy we get, the more complex the techniques of presenting paranormal evidence become.  This is either an attempt to fool us once again, as Arthur Conan Doyle was once fooled, or a sincere attempt at detection.  I cannot be clear as to which motivation is more widely held.

However, I can tell you of my personal photography experience and opinions dealing with the nuances of camera work. This will appear in a later blog post I will title Photography: Film vs. Digital 

What Are Ghosts?

Okay, now I’m guilty of invoking some sensationalism by leading with the word “ghost” instead of “spirit,” but in my years of teaching high school and college, sometimes a dramatic turn of phrase or a good old slamming down of a textbook on the desk to begin a lecture is the only thing to keep a listener awake.

In simplistic terms, a “ghost” is the tangible manifestation of a dead person.

Some scholars contend this manifestation to be the “soul” or literal “spirit” of the deceased; others consider it to be a part of the person that has yet to “cross over” into the realm of death.  Either way, both camps will agree that a “ghost” is considered a part of the deceased that is detected in the world of the living.  The very nature of the idea also conjures up notions of the divine: the two sides of that coin being, the angelic side, and the demonic side.  If such a connection exists between ghosts and an omnipotent force that is indeed beyond this world, “Angels” and “Demons” would most certainly be classified as ethereal “spirits.”

I’m not a religious man, not in any traditional sense, but I do believe in the unknown – in the existence of “things” that may be beyond our normal human understanding.  Therefore, I cannot discount the mystical or “divine” implications in such a belief system.  If I am to subscribe into the existence of spirits or ghosts, I must subscribe into the existence of “Angels” as well. 

I will delve deeper into this in later posts...

Defining "Paranormal"

The term “paranormal” as defined by Merriam Webster’s dictionary reads:

 adj \ˌpa-rə-ˈnor-məl, ˈpa-rə-ˌ\ : not scientifically explainable

This is an extremely broad, yet succinct, definition.  And this definition in the reason I’m baffled that synonyms like “supernatural,” “spectral,” “mystical,” and “occult” are commonly used in its place.  This is utter nonsense and most likely the act of the speaker to invoke a kind of sensationalism into his parlance.

Paranormal phenomenon is simply something that cannot immediately be explained through science.  This does not mean that it will not EVENTUALLY be explained through science.  According to this definition, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum might use the term “paranormal” with respect to climate change, since there is apparently a popular disagreement on what seems to me, anyway, like solid scientific fact.  But science is constantly being debated…as is the paranormal.

This is an interesting site to explore, as I’ve done some consulting for the organization in years past:

http://paranormalresearchsociety.org/

What are Aliens, Ghosts, and The Loch Ness Monster?

As best I can disseminate in the blog format (thank goodness I’m not twittering these thoughts, as I’ve been told you’re only allowed 140 characters), I will elaborate on the established classifications of paranormal phenomena. 

These classifications can be divided into three categories:

• Spirits (AKA “ghosts”)
• Extraterrestrial Life (including UFO’s)
• Cryptids (mainly creatures, like the Loch Ness Monster for example)

I’ve received feedback about being too wordy and using too big of a vocabulary.  Normally, as in the cases of my class lectures and with my students, I would respond with a chastisement: I shouldn’t dumb down my content for the fast-food consumption of my audience; but in this case, and for the purpose of disseminating as much information as possible, I will try to comply with the criticism...

In an effort to adhere to the “times,” and the attention spans of readers of the same age or below as my students, my following blogs will be brief.

Thank You!

On a personal, and I suppose somewhat professional, note, I wanted to reflect for a moment on all the initial feedback I’ve received in response to my foray into internet blogging.  I’m happy to say it’s primarily been positive, and a welcome respite from the often aggressive and incredulous environment of college academia, and the even more cutthroat world of civil service, in which the insidiousness of politics never ceases to rear its ugly head.

My mission remains steadfast: to relay data on this subject of Anthropological Phenomenology, the majority of which I’ve gleaned from years of hard work investigating and gathering compelling evidence.

Thank you all for your support.  There will be more to come.

Supernatural Skepticism

The scales are tipped in the favor of skeptics, simply because it is a lot easier to accept the unexplainable as a fraud or fake, rather than expending the effort to prove the veracity of a particular event, object or entity.  With the aid of archetypes, like those hypothesized by Carl Jung (see Wikipedia article), people are more apt to explain the causes of potential phenomena by chalking such results up to the images or concepts that already reside in their minds, as though the seeds have already been planted in their brains and the ensuing confirmation in reality is therefore deemed less-than-reliable.  It’s like the housewife who finds an image of the Virgin Mary burnt into her toast; it’s much less a sign, than it is an example of wish fulfillment of this particular person’s need to validate her faith.  I doubt, if she was say, Muslim, or Hindu, that she would see that same image in that same piece of burnt toast.  This is an extreme example, but nonetheless an example that skeptics of the “unknown” use often. 

The mind attempts to settle the unexplainable before it has a chance to use its mechanisms of logic to deduce a definitive root cause.

However, efforts to prove the unexplainable as fraudulent should be met equally with efforts to prove the veracity of the unexplainable.  Pursuits of either result should be equally weighed.  What is outside the realm of human comprehension is something that one cannot dismiss as not existing. This is basically a more complex version of that age-old question: “If a tree falls in the woods, and you are not present to see or hear it, does it make a sound?”  If you fall into the camp that believes this means the tree doesn’t make a sound, then you are most likely a skeptic, and perhaps also an individual who is likely to disregard claims of the existence of the supernatural or paranormal.  If you fall into the camp that believes the tree has most likely made a sound, even though you were not witness to the event, well, you are most likely a person who subscribes to logic, to deductive reasoning, and someone who is more likely to investigate claims of the supernatural and allow your mind to be open to the possibility of “something else” – something that exists beyond the scope of our comprehension, something that we are not readily aware of, or might never understand in our lifetimes, but it’s something for which you cannot deny the possibility of existing.  

If A UFO Falls in the Forest...

Things or events for which there are no explanations are many; however, since these things or events are indeed unexplainable, it is equally impossible to explain, and further prove, that these things do NOT exist or that these events did NOT happen.  To assert that something happened, for which there is no explanation, is equally as absurd as asserting that something didn’t happen, when there’s no explanation or evidence to support the assertion.

I consider the question of the paranormal as a modern existential predicament...

Welcome and Hello

I’m Professor Walker Lamott and I’m writing at my computer inside my home office inside the city of Springfield, in the great state of Missouri.

I have taught at several universities, primarily within the field of Anthropology. I have also served as a consultant on various governmental agencies, at both the federal and state levels, with regard to a specialized sub-field of the social science I refer to as Anthropological Phenomenology. I have pioneered this peripheral science and am considered by many as its current leader, or spokesman, for lack of a better term. My affiliations with particular legislative committees and agencies shall necessarily remain undisclosed, and I will not elaborate further on my involvement with them. However, I can assure you that my extensive knowledge in this area is entirely my own.

I’m semi-retired, teaching one class every fall at Missouri State University (all hail the “Queen of The Ozarks”); and this schedule affords me the pleasure of making this sub-field my primary intellectual and investigative focus.

Anthropology is essentially the study of human beings and the manner in which they live and exist in society, both past and present; Anthropological Phenomenology focuses on the presence of “unexplained” phenomena – life-forms, objects and events – that exist in human life and societies. Anthropological Phenomenology does not seek to explain, or even define, the “unexplainable,” but rather it’s a science that purports that the unexplainable is an undeniable part of everyday human life. And that it should be recognized as such.

These blogs are an attempt to disseminate information to the public and to rationally discuss what many believe to be irrational...