| The term "supernatural" has distinct overtones that the more
"scientific" term "paranormal" doesn't seem to have. But there's
a great overlasp in the usage and understanding of these terms.
Anything that operates in a way that is beyond our understanding
can be said to be "paranormal" (outside or beyond the normal).
"Paranormal" abilities include the ability to dowse, to communicate
directly to another person's mind, and to move objects with one's
mind. [Operating on the assumption, for discussion, that all these
abilities are real rather than imagined or mistaken interpretations
of other phenomena.]
One key to the understanding of the concept of the paranormal is
that whatever's involved is responding to a "natural" law that we
just don't know about yet. In time, the "paranormal" will become
the normal.
"Supernatural," by contrast, has an implication of something totally
beyond "natural" law. [There are some, myself included, who believe
there's nothing "supernatural" <outside of God> -- but that the
laws governing such things, like the classical "paranormal,"
definition, just aren't understood yet.] Certain things, such as
spiritism, demonic manifestations, and various religion-based practices
(including Voudoun and Brujeria) are catergorized thus.
For some, this is a distinction without a difference.
Examples:
In another note, concerning demonic manifestations, we read several
stories about the Smurl family and what appears to be harrassment
by supernatural entities.
Now, assuming the initial reports are accurate, there are three
possible conclusions one can draw:
1) The Smurl story is a hoax. This is a "mundane" explanation.
2) The Smurl story is the result of the action of demons. This
is a "supernatural" explanation of the events.
3) The Smurl story is the result of poltergeists. In this case,
the poltergeist(s) could either be:
3a) Mischevious spirits. This, too, would be "supernatural."
3b) The result of unconscious psychokinesis. This would make it
a "psi" function (controlled, though not consciously, by a mind
of a family member), which if we don't fully understand today, we
anticipate we will be _able_ to understand as a part of natural
law. That makes it "paranormal."
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| RE: .1,.2
Steve is essentially correct but perhaps some further explication
may help clear up some of the difficulty you are having bruce.
I guess I should start out by saying that I recognize that people
have supernatural explanations for things, but that I don't believe
myself in supernatural explanations. I think that there are phenomena
(poltergeists, precognition, etc.) which probably will require some
pretty thorough revamping of our current concepts of natural law
to account for -- i.e., that are paranormal. But I think that with
work our current understanding of natural law *can* be revised and
expanded to include these phenomena.
Traditionally (and that tradition literally goes back tens or even
hundreds of thousands of years) the world has been viewed as having
two distinct parts. The physical world and the mental one. The
physical world follows natural law -- if you drop a rock it will
fall unless something supports it. The mental world is viewed as
essentially unlawful -- people have choices. We "explain" human
behavior in terms of motives, goals, plans and emotions.
Natural law generally encompasses only that which is so familiar
and everday that alternatives seem silly. The less everyday (e.g.,
lightning) is conveniently explained by creatures of power whose
behavior is determined as human behavior is. The effect of human
will can have is limited by humans being part of the natural world,
while these creatures are not so limited and thus can do what
humans cannot. They are supernatural. In effect they can change,
temporarily or permanantly, natural law.
Slowly over the centuries, and acclerating in the last few hundred
years, efforts have been made to codify and catalog natural law.
Phenomena once attributed to the will of supernatural beings is
now explained by natural law. A small but significant step has
been made towards explaining even the human mind in terms of
natural law.
But people still look to beings (sometimes to non-sentient "forces",
but generally there is a concept of "will" there somewhere) who
can rewrite or ignore natural law to explain things. Frequently
these things are clearly explainable by our current understanding
of natural law, but occasionally they are not. These are supernatural
explations.
I believe that demons are creatures invented by people to provide
the sentience behind their supernatural explanations of things
(including manifestations of ugly pseudo-personalities in their
own subconscious). I do not believe in demons. I look for other
explanations, either conventional ones (or "mundane ones" as Steve
says) or in terms of known apparently paranormal phenomena. I class
demons as supernatural creatures, and therefore fictitious.
I could be convinced, though, that I was wrong -- that there are
indeed personalities, evil in human terms, and wielding strong psychic
powers which are independent of any human personality. I would
not, then accept the existence of the supernatural -- of that which
is beyond "lawful" explanation. I would simply say that they join
the class of paranormal phenomena, and would start to look for
ways to include their existence in the set of laws which I take
to describe the workings of the Universe.
The same, roughly speaking applies to other types of spirits, though
it would take less to convince me of the reality of some of them.
J.G. Rhine, who I think coined the term paranormal (he certainly is the
person who is responsible for its widespread use) seemed to have
a paticular "structure" to the way laws are structured, but it is
unclear (at least to me) whether he felt that this was fundamental
or simply a matter of human perception. We have to keep in mind
that Rhine was a scientific dualist -- that he felt that, although
psychology was lawful, that it was *not* reduciable to physics;
that just as there is matter and energy there is also mind which
is neither of these. However, the psi phenomena he studied in his
lab seemed to imply that mind-substance could sometimes interact
rather directly with the mechanical universe. Thus, when trying
to explain things in the physical world, one generally applies
the "normal" physical laws, but occasionally, when the other
natural domain interacts, one has to apply those natural laws
which are "beside" (rather than above or beyond) those normally
used, i.e., the laws of the domain of mind.
Personally, I don't like some of the implications of the term, but
can think of no better one (e.g., "unconventional" hardly has the
right conotations). Its basic meaning though I am in agreement
with.
Topher
|