18 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Why isn't this book a bestseller???,
This review is from: Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld (Hardcover)
Not since reading Lyall Watson 30 years ago have I had such a paradigm-shifting and enjoyable read. My take on "occult phenomena" had been to honour the experience and try not to get sidetracked into theories and explanations as they are all either scientific blind alleys (Ghosts and UFOs contravene the laws of physics so therefore they do not exist regardless of your life-changing experience of them)or else wacko new-agey self-contradictory baloney about Atlantis and angels and The Akashic Record. By his own admission,Patrick Harpur does expound a grand theory of all occult phenomena but not a dogmatic one. His exploration fully honours the mischievous, shifting, dreamlike but nontheless powerful reality of all sorts of phenomena from the Loch Ness Monster to bogus social workers. Of course it raises as many questions as answers and I think that is rather the point - that we cannot pin these things down and they must remain phenomenological but that we ignore them and their messages at our peril....
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Jan 2009 17:04:19 GMT
just felt the need to call you up on 'The Akashic Record' being 'new age baloney'. Not that it is part of my religion or any such thing but though you should be aware that what has termed the 'akashic field' is being rediscovered by science (see Ervin Laszlo's work). I think its rather like the 'aether' which was at first embraced by science- then rejected as bogus- then re-embraced in new terminology as 'space-time continium'. Even more recently we have the 'zero point field' and 'quantum non locality'. It seems we are contually reformulating this 'something' and exposing different aspects of it via different terminology. Of course there are the 'akashic fields' of genuis scinetist/philosophers like Ervin laszlo then there are the 'akashic fields' of stoned new agers- there's a big difference.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2009 13:37:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Sep 2009 15:59:41 BDT
Your last sentence gets at the reviewer's original intent I think. Things like this can be *used* for baloney, even though there is something real there. Everyone who uses the phrase doesn't have first-hand understanding of what they're talking about; the odds are against a phrase like that being used with knowledge.
EDIT: 'Bogus social workers'??? Man I have to read this thing.
FURTHER EDIT: I just read it. Astounding, excellent, an instant all-time favourite book of mine, and I read a *lot*.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›