Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 12, 2007 at 11:59 PM in reply to: Warner bros probably guilty of killing Anneliese Michel in real exorcism case of 1975/76 #18238
granville1
ParticipantSo she may have watched the movie. The only real scandal is the dire superstition of her Roman Catholic friends, clergy, and of course, poor Anneliese herself. As the Church directive quoted in The Exorcist states, medical possibilities need to be exhausted before leaping to the supernatural. Folk-fundamentalism is a real killer.
granville1
ParticipantThanks, Blizzi.
granville1
ParticipantAstonishing Merrin-melding.
granville1
ParticipantGlad you’re being cautious.
I don’t know what to make of the voices – you bring up a deep issue as to why they wouldn’t skip the mike and go directly to the tape… but I suppose it could equally be asked why the woudn’t skip both mike and tape and manifest clearly as voices in the normal environment. Why are they “hiding” until we make the effort – and it’s quite an effort – to contact them?
I am torn, as usual, between a reductionist and a paranormal interpretation. I’ve heard some of these online and so many of the phrases and sentences can bear as many as three different interpretations. Is this (reductionism) simply because as with our vision, the brain tends to see or even construct patterns out of random signals? Or is it because “the spirits” can communicate more than one message in a single vocalization? I really don’t know.
The question – if we are interracting with an independent phenomenon – seems to center around the identity of the voices. If they are nonmaterial entities, that’s very interesting. On the other hand, if they are dissociated personality fragments from our own unconscious… that’s very interesting too, because in that case, we’d be talking to ourselves – only we’d be talking to the self-portions not normally known or available to the conscious ego.
Like I say, it’s fascinating, but I’m still in the speculative, rather than the certainty, phase.
granville1
ParticipantYou’re welcome – thanks for sharing the large pics.
granville1
ParticipantGood going, Ryan.
granville1
ParticipantYeah, I can’t dld it either…
granville1
ParticipantYes, Warner’s, if you’re watching, please release the original with the “added features” being requested here. It would be a pioneering achievement, and, I’m sure, quite marketable beyond “fandom”.
granville1
ParticipantYeah, market values dominate… and the market is dominated by shallowness…
granville1
ParticipantMiss Clelia in the film is from Jung – “Clelia” was one of the dissociated personalities or “spirits” Jung encountered in a seance. Also the patient in the novel who goes thru shoe-making motions was a patient of Jung. Like Temple, Jung figured out what the motions meant. I think both are found in Jung’s “Memories, Dreams, and Reflections”, but I can’t swear to it.
granville1
ParticipantBad memory re: Clelia: actually, Jung may have cited her name from his study of the paranormal rather than participating directly in a seance.
granville1
ParticipantGreg, thanks for your kind words. I only just now read them – sorry it took me so long!
granville1
ParticipantSounds like a good idea, tho’ I don’t have anything to contribute…
granville1
ParticipantGreat letter – I hope they respond fully and positively.
granville1
ParticipantBeautiful work as usual, Blizzi!
-
AuthorPosts
CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999